Amy Karangekis, one of the named defendants, was sworn in as a judge for the Massachusetts Superior Court on June 30. Hollander is a former senior employee of the Springfield Regional office of the AG’s office, serving in two roles, regional chief of the office and senior trial counsel, from 2013 to 2023.
Age bias, then a firing
Hollander alleges that Liza Tran, chief of the trial division at the Attorney General’s Office and one of Hollander’s supervisors, made discriminatory, age-based comments about him and coerced other supervisors to retaliate against him. He maintains that he complained to other supervisors twice about the age discrimination, but they did nothing to address the problem.
He also alleges that Tran implied to others that Hollander was a “rogue attorney,” unprepared to take a case to trial. Hollander blamed Tran for an unsatisfactory resolution of the case. During a call on Jan. 28, 2022, Hollander alleges that Tran made “two or more age-based discriminatory statements” and allegedly criticized his more than 22 years of service as an assistant attorney general and his nearly 30 years of experience practicing law at the time, the complaint said. He also alleges she made comments about the six years he spent as the regional chief of the Springfield office between 2013 and 2018.
He was placed on administrative leave in March 2023 and fired one month later at age 54. According to his complaint, at the meeting during which he was informed of his termination, he was told about a draft severance agreement that would require him to “release all legal claims against the (Attorney General‘s Office) including, specifically, any claims of discrimination
including age discrimination.”
Hollander is still an active attorney and has not been publicly disciplined. He is now in private practice.
Age discrimination in employment law
Age discrimination in employment is prohibited under both state and federal law. There is considerable overlap between the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act. Both protect employees age 40 and over from discrimination in various aspects of employment, including hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination. (Some states, like Maryland, do not restrict the protection to those over a certain age.)
Under both federal and Massachusetts statutes, employers are prohibited from making employment decisions based on age rather than qualifications or performance. This affects actions such as refusing to hire or promote older workers, giving them less favorable job assignments, or laying them off because of age.
In addition, both laws protect workers from age-related harassment, including offensive comments or actions that are pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. Both laws also protect employees from employer retaliation in response to complaints about age discrimination.
Massachusetts law differs from the ADEA in that it covers more employers. The Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act prohibits age discrimination by employers who employ six or more employees, whereas the ADEA applies to those with 20 or more employees.
Waivers
As happened to Bart Hollander, employees are sometimes asked to sign statements releasing their employers from any liability they may have for violating age discrimination laws.
READ MORE CALIFORNIA UNPAID WAGES LEGAL NEWS
As a general matter, these waivers may not be enforceable unless certain conditions are met. They must:
- be clear and understandable;
- the employer must offer something of value in return (including increased severance benefits) in exchange for an agreement to waive legal rights;
- the waiver must specifically refer to the ADEA and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practice Act (G.L. c.151B); and
- the employer must advise the employee that he or she may consult a lawyer, consider the agreement for 21 days, and revoke it for up to 7 days after signing.
What’s next for Bart Hollander?
Hollander’s age discrimination lawsuit, minus his First Amendment free speech claims which were dismissed, will now presumably go through discovery and then on to either a trial or settlement. Under similar circumstances, many employers choose to settle, rather than either risk the damage that the disclosure of unfair employment practices might do or incur the expense of a trial.
This is a dispute with all the basic charm of a family fight. To the casual observer, the Attorney General’s office seems to have more to lose in terms of reputation. All bets are off.
Source link
