151B, § 4, and 42 U.S.C. §1981; class claims for a “pattern and practice” of disparate treatment under Title VII, M.G.L. ch. 151B §4, and 42 U.S.C. §1981; and individual and class claims for disparate impact discrimination under Title VII and M.G.L. ch. 151B, §4. They ask the Court to certify a class comprising all “minority employees of the MBCR who have been denied promotional or advancement opportunity since 2005” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3).

Expedited consideration of the Defendant’s Motion For Clarification will ensure that hiring is in conformity with 42 U.S.C. §1983 pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000, et. seq., and M.G.L. c.151B, §4, and thus limit the City’s potential liability in the currently pending case of DeLeo et al. v. City of Boston et al., Civil Action No. 03-12538-PBS, which directly challenges the process by which the Defendant appoints police officers under the Castro decree. 5.

4, § 7, Fifty-ninth (definition); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 76, § 5 (schools); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 151B, § 4 (employment, housing, credit). (2016): Mass. Gen. Laws, ch.

B. Plaintiffs Have Stated a Valid Cause of Action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B Because Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the FHA, they have also stated a claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4(6) (Count IV). As Defendants concede, Massachusetts courts have long held that cases interpreting the FHA are persuasive in interpreting the state law counterpart “unless we discern a reason to depart from those decisions.”

A “qualified handicapped person” is a person with a handicap who can perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation. See M.G.L. ch. 151B, § 4(16); see also Ward v. Massachusetts Health Research Inst., 209 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2000); MCAD Guidelines: Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap (hereafter the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines provide that “[t]he ‘essential functions of the job are those functions which must necessarily be performed by an employee in order to accomplish the principal objectives of the job.”

Enforcing sex-based roles for employees, such as by taking punitive action against a male employee because of a belief that he should leave caregiving to his wife, is sex discrimination by engaging in prescriptive gender stereotyping. 5 It violates M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4. 1.

In Count One of the Plaintiff’s complaint, she alleged that the Defendants subjected her to disparate treatment based on race and color: 50. By the actions described above in Paragraphs 1 through 48, the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment based on her race and color, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 and M.G.L. c. 151B §4. 1 The Plaintiff chooses not contest the Defendants’ position on her claim for defamation.

A, at ¶22). The Plaintiffs served their Complaint on the City February 5, 2004, and subsequently amended it March 5, 2004 to add counts alleging 1 Case 1:03-cv-12538-PBS Document 99 Filed 03/15/2005 Page 1 of 21 violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of M.G.L. ch. 151B, §4. (Ex.

See Docket No. 27 (establishing December 1, 2004, as the deadline for completing discovery on liability issues and January 15, 2005, as the deadline for filing dispositive motions). 6 Plaintiffs also allege that the police-officer hiring system violates Mass. Gen. Laws c. 151B, § 4(1). See Pl.

BOSTON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. INTRODUCTION In March, 2002 and October, 2003, the City of Boston’s Police Department (“Department”) selected and hired entry-level police officers pursuant to both statutory requirements and a federal court consent decree (“Castro Decree”), a decree that required the consideration of police applicants’ race by all cities and towns with a minority population of one 1 Case 1:03-cv-12538-PBS Document 65 Filed 09/02/2004 Page 1 of 24 percent or more.1 See Castro v. Beecher, 365 F. Supp. 655 (D.Mass.1973); Castro v. Beecher, 522 F. Supp. 873, 875 (1981). The Plaintiffs, who were not hired as police officers by the City, have alleged that the Defendants’ failure to consider them for police officer positions violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(1). Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to Summary Judgment as to all counts of their complaint.