Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H1889 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1 of 1
2	2	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 3194 FILED ON: 1/16/2025
3	3	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1889
4	4	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5	5	_________________
6	6	PRESENTED BY:
7	7	Joan Meschino
8	8	_________________
9	9	To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
10	10	Court assembled:
11	11	The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:
12	12	An Act to eliminate disparate impact.
13	13	_______________
14	14	PETITION OF:
15	15	NAME:DISTRICT/ADDRESS :DATE ADDED:Joan Meschino3rd Plymouth1/16/2025Christine P. Barber34th Middlesex3/4/2025Sal N. DiDomenicoMiddlesex and Suffolk1/29/2025Carmine Lawrence Gentile13th Middlesex2/17/2025Adrian C. Madaro1st Suffolk3/11/2025Samantha Montaño15th Suffolk2/20/2025Lindsay N. Sabadosa1st Hampshire2/18/2025Erika Uyterhoeven27th Middlesex2/19/2025 1 of 3
16	16	HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 3194 FILED ON: 1/16/2025
17	17	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 1889
18	18	By Representative Meschino of Hull, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 1889) of Joan
19	19	Meschino and others relative to disparate impact. The Judiciary.
20	20	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
21	21	_______________
22	22	In the One Hundred and Ninety-Fourth General Court
23	23	(2025-2026)
24	24	_______________
25	25	An Act to eliminate disparate impact.
26	26	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority
27	27	of the same, as follows:
28	28	1 SECTION 1. Chapter 12 of the General Laws, is hereby amended by inserting after
29	29	2Section 11N the following section:-
30	30	3 Section 11O.
31	31	4 (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the
32	32	5following meanings:-
33	33	6 “Program, policy or practice”, means, without limitation, one or more actions, activities,
34	34	7operations, decisions, initiatives, mandates, criteria or methods of administration of a unit of
35	35	8government.
36	36	9 “Protected characteristic”, a characteristic protected from discrimination under
37	37	10Commonwealth law as defined in statute, case law, administrative regulation, and other legal
38	38	11precedent. 2 of 3
39	39	12 “Unit of government”, (1) any executive office, department, agency or subdivision of the
40	40	13Commonwealth including, without limitation: counties, cities, towns, offices, boards,
41	41	14commissions and authorities; (2) any persons employed by or contracted by a unit of government
42	42	15or (3) any programs or activities conducted, operated or administered or funded through direct or
43	43	16in-kind assistance, by a unit of government.
44	44	17 (b) No unit of government shall directly or indirectly adopt, implement, approve or
45	45	18utilize, without limitation, any program, policy or practice that has a disparate impact.
46	46	19 (c) Any person or class of persons claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of subsection
47	47	20(b) may institute and prosecute a civil action in a state court for injunctive, declaratory and other
48	48	21appropriate forms of relief including an award of actual damages. Any person or class of persons
49	49	22claiming to be aggrieved by violations of intentional discrimination may seek an award of
50	50	23punitive damages. This civil action must be filed not later than three years after a violation of
51	51	24subsection (b).
52	52	25 Any aggrieved person or persons who prevails in an action authorized by this Section
53	53	26shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation including expert witness fees,
54	54	27reasonable attorneys' fees in an amount to be fixed by the court and prejudgment and post-
55	55	28judgment interest.
56	56	29 (d) Burdens of proof in actions for disparate impact.
57	57	30 (1) The plaintiff has the burden of proving that a challenged program, policy or practice
58	58	31caused a disparate impact. The plaintiff does not have to prove that the challenged program,
59	59	32policy or practice intended to discriminate. 3 of 3
60	60	33 (2) Once the plaintiff satisfies the burden of proof set forth in subsection (d)(1) of this
61	61	34Section, the defendant has the burden of proving that the challenged program, policy or practice
62	62	35meets all of the elements of a substantial legitimate justification.
63	63	36 (3) Demonstrating that the program, policy or practice is supported by a substantial
64	64	37legitimate justification is not a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination.
65	65	38 (e) A challenged program, policy or practice may be a contributing cause of the disparate
66	66	39impact, but does not need to be the sole or predominant cause.
67	67	40 (f) Nothing in this section shall be intended to require a plaintiff seeking to enforce the
68	68	41protection afforded herein to exhaust any administrative remedies applicable to discrimination
69	69	42actions under other laws.
70	70	43 (g) This Act is intended to be liberally construed to effectuate the broad, remedial goal of
71	71	44eradicating discrimination by units of government, whether intentionally or due to disparate
72	72	45impact, and to secure access to the judicial process for an aggrieved person or persons.
73	73	46 SECTION 2: This Act shall take effect upon its passage.