Grandoit v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination

• Decision Date: 16 October 2020
• Docket Number: 19-P-1496
• Parties: Gerard D. GRANDOIT v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & others.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

98 Mass.App.Ct. 1114

155 N.E.3d 775 (Table)

Gerard D. GRANDOIT

v.MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & others.¹

19-P-1496

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: October 16, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, Gerard D. Grandoit, appeals from two judgments dismissing complaints against the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), Arbella Insurance Group (Arbella), and Roche Insurance Agency (Roche), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1) and (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiff contends that both motion judges erred as a matter of law in concluding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgments in favor of the MCAD and Arbella, and vacate so much of the judgment in favor of Roche.

Background. The plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the MCAD on or about October 31, 2017, alleging that defendants Arbella and Roche discriminated against him with respect to the cancellation of his automobile insurance policy. The MCAD issued a finding of no probable cause to support the allegations and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed this finding and an investigating commissioner of the MCAD affirmed the dismissal on August 10, 2018.

The plaintiff then filed two complaints for administrative review in the Superior Court on or about September 17, 2018, one against the MCAD and Roche (case 18-02909), and the other against the MCAD and Arbella (case 18-02906), alleging that the MCAD improperly dismissed his case for lack of probable cause. In both cases, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed the complaints against the MCAD for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint against Arbella was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Discussion. The appeal from the dismissal of the MCAD is governed in all material respects by Grandoit v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 603 (2019), in which we held that the plaintiff has no right of appeal from the dismissal of a complaint before the MCAD for lack of probable cause. "As the Supreme Judicial Court concluded in Christo [v. Edward G. Boyle Ins. Agency, Inc.], 402 Mass. [815,] 818 [ (1988) ], a preliminary hearing before an investigating commissioner is not an ‘adjudicatory proceeding’ within the meaning of G. L. c. 30A, ‘and no statutory right of appeal for judicial review applies to ... a determination [by the investigating commissioner].’ " Grandoit, supra at 606. "Nor is judicial review available under the certiorari statute, G. L. c. 249, § 4. ‘Certiorari is a limited procedure reserved for correction of substantial errors of law apparent on the record created before a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.’ " Grandoit, supra at 607, quoting School Comm. of Hudson v. Board of Educ., 448 Mass. 565, 575-576 (2007). As the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter, there was no...