Protected at Work: Massachusetts Should Close the Gaps in Employment Law That Leave Domestic Violence Victims, Their Employers, and Their Workplaces Unprotected
By Andrea Kramer
Though domestic violence (“DV”) is often framed as a private matter, it also is a pervasive workplace issue, one that affects workplace safety, employee productivity, and employers’ bottom lines. Many employers rightly recognize the importance of addressing DV as a workplace issue, but not all. And, Massachusetts law does not require them to do so. Under current Massachusetts law, employees in Massachusetts can be—and often are—fired or denied employment opportunities simply because they are victims, and employers have no obligation to provide victims with reasonable accommodations that would permit them to continue to work productively and safely. An Act Relative to Employment Protections for Victims of Abusive Behavior (the “Protected at Work Bill”) (H.2143/S.1294) offers a necessary and overdue correction. Massachusetts should join the eight other states that already have similar legislation by passing this bill, which is once again awaiting a vote by the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
(Note: This article uses the words “survivor” and “victim” interchangeably while recognizing that different communities prefer different words. Statutes and legal contexts generally use “victim” while DV advocates often prefer “survivor” because it de-stigmatizes, and captures the resilience of, the person who has experienced the abuse.)
Domestic violence, which includes physical violence, sexual assault, stalking, psychological and emotional abuse, and coercive control, has consequences in the workplace. Nationally, each year, there are over 12 million victims of these crimes in the US, and nearly three in 10 women and one in 10 men have reported that their experience of DV has had an impact on their functioning, including their participation in the workforce. Survivors nationwide lose nearly eight million days of paid work annually, and as many as half of all survivors lose their jobs for reasons related to abuse, such as absenteeism due to injury or being prevented from going to work, having to relocate for safety, poor work performance due to emotional strain or pain, and discrimination or lack of reasonable accommodation that would permit the survivor to continue to work. Even when survivors continue working, DV can enter the workplace in numerous ways. Abusers frequently harass victims at work through repeated phone calls, text messages, and emails; telling lies about the victim to the employer; or showing up at the victim’s workplace. On the other side, abusers often spend work time and use their employers’ resources, including company cars, emails, and phones, to perpetuate the abuse, thus impacting the abuser’s work productivity and opening employers up to liability.
In 2014, Massachusetts took an important step toward supporting survivors by enacting the Abusive Behavior Leave Law, G.L. c. 149, § 52E, which permits certain employees to take up to 15 days of leave in a 12-month period for certain reasons relating to DV, including court proceedings, medical care, and relocation. That statute does not, however, apply to people who work for employers with fewer than 50 employees, does not restrict employers from discriminating against DV victims, and does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to DV victims. And it does not apply to applicants or prospective employees.
The Protected at Work Bill, designed to work with existing Massachusetts law, addresses these gaps directly by integrating survivor status into the Commonwealth’s anti-discrimination framework. First, the bill adds “status as a victim of abusive behavior” as a protected class under unlawful practices in G.L. c. 151B, which prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, and other terms of employment. Second, the bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as schedule adjustments, safety planning, or changes in work location, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship to the employer, and mandates a good-faith interactive process for the reasonable accommodation. Additionally, the bill extends these protections, as well as ones in the Abusive Behavior Leave Law, to job applicants and prospective employees.
Overall, the Protected at Work Bill treats DV as a workplace reality requiring legal protections for both survivors and employers. The bill helps stabilize the employment of victims, which is necessary to enable victims to secure the financial resources needed to escape abuse. And the bill is designed to help reduce employer costs associated with DV by promoting accommodations that increase retention and reduce interruptions and distractions in the workplace. The bill also creates clarity for employers, many of whom want to “do the right thing” but do not know what that is. The bill recognizes that firing or refusing to hire a survivor is often rooted in stereotypes or victim-blaming, e.g., erroneous beliefs that survivors “permit” the abuse to happen, or on the mistaken belief that doing so will decrease the risk of violence in the workplace. The bill is based on an understanding that the best way to increase workplace safety is for victims to feel safe in disclosing the DV to their employers and for employers to work with them on safety plans. In this way, the bill seeks to make workplaces safer for all.
Massachusetts has long positioned itself as a leader in employment law and civil rights. Yet, on this issue, it lags behind the realities of modern workplaces and the lived experiences of survivors and employers. When an abuser calls, stalks, or appears at a workplace, or prevents an employee from going to work, or causes an employee to leave employment, the line between “personal” and “professional” dissolves. The law must reflect that reality.
The Protected at Work Bill offers a measured, well-calibrated solution. For this reason, both the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, as well as many employment defense attorneys, support the Protected at Work Bill.
By enacting this bill, Massachusetts can ensure that survivors are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control and that employers have clear, consistent guidance on how to respond. The time to close the gap in workplace protection is now.
Andrea Kramer is an accomplished general litigator with Kramer Law LLC, who focuses on business/commercial cases and employment disputes. Recognized by her peers as a top attorney, Andrea is currently working pro bono in support of the Protected at Work Bill, recently authored an amicus brief for the WBA in a case involving the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, and has long been an advocate for women’s rights.
