Appeals panel hears dispute over MCAD filings and timeliness in Francis v. Aban
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Appellate counsel argued a series of MCAD filings and a January 2014 resubmission establish that harassment and retaliation claims were timely or that equitable estoppel applies; the county counsel countered with waiver and summary‑judgment record arguments and raised Rule 403 concerns about extraneous materials.
In Francis v. Aban the Appeals Court considered whether documents submitted to the MCAD and a proposed supplemental appendix demonstrate the plaintiff’s harassment and retaliation claims were timely or whether the claims were waived and properly dismissed on summary judgment.
Appellant counsel Danielle Gill asked the panel to consider a set of documents the superior court did not have, including a January 2014 faxed resubmission that she said incorporated earlier materials and added five respondents; she argued the filings support a continuing‑violation theory or equitable‑estoppel relief so the claims should survive summary judgment.
Defense counsel Alan Forbes, representing the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, responded that the plaintiff’s summary‑judgment filings in the trial court reflected a different position (that he had not properly filed a complaint) and that argument raised on appeal is waived. Forbes also pressed that extraneous material added in the appellate appendix may be subject to a motion to strike and that the trial court had properly applied Rule 403 and summary‑judgment standards.
The panel questioned counsel about compliance with MCAD procedures, the judge’s margin endorsement at summary judgment, and whether the record showed excusable neglect or misleading communications by the MCAD investigator. After extended argument the court thanked counsel and submitted the case.
The panel took the matter under advisement; no disposition was announced at the hearing.