Discrimination Cases

ARNOLD FLOYD JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. CROSSROADS FORD, INC., Defendant No. COA13-173 Filed 15 October 2013 1. Evidence — affidavit—summary judgment — erroneously excluded —abuse of discretion The trial court abused its discretion in a wrongful termination case by excluding an affidavit presented by plaintiff prior to a summary judgment hearing. The affidavit from the individual hired to replace plaintiff was timely served upon defendant, the substance of the affidavit did not contradict any previous sworn testimony of the affiant, and the contents of the affidavit were .not contradictory to plaintiff’s complaint. 2. Employer and Employee — wrongful termination — correct evidentiary standard — genuine issue of material fact — summary judgment erroneous The trial court erred in a wrongful termination case by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant employer. Although the trial court did not use the wrong evidentiary standard as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, plaintiff’s evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s age was the reason for his termination. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 21 August 2012 by Judge Howard E. Manning in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 August 2013. Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher, for plaintiff-appellant. CranJUl Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Paul H. Derrick and Sara B. Warf, by defendant-appellee. North Carolina Advocates for Justice, by Winslow Wetsch, PLLC, by Laura J. Wetsch, amicus curiae. McCullough, Judge. Plaintiff Arnold Floyd Johnson appeals from the trial court’s order, granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Crossroads Ford, Inc. and dismissing plaintiff’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated based on his age in violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act (section 143-422.1, et seq., of the North Carolina General Statutes) with prejudice. After careful review, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order. I. Background On 17 February 2011, plaintiff Arnold Floyd Johnson filed a complaint against defendant Crossroads Ford, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation operating numerous car dealerships within North Carolina and Virginia, alleging wrongful termination. Specifically, plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated by defendant based on his age in violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act, section 143-422.1, et seq., of the North Carolina General Statutes. The complaint alleged the following: Plaintiff was bom on 9 April 1950. In March 2000, plaintiff was hired by defendant as a salesperson. Defendant’s president and principal owner Glenn Boyd (“President Boyd”) stated “that he could promote [plaintiff], so [p]laintiff should let [President Boyd] know what he was interested in doing, but that this was ‘a young man’s business.’ ” During his employment, plaintiff was promoted to Finance and Insurance Manager, then Business and Development Center Manager, and then Sales Manager at Crossroads Ford of Cary (“Crossroads Ford”). In 2007, plaintiff was promoted to the position of General Manager at Crossroads Ford. Plaintiff alleged that after he became General Manager, defendant’s Vice-President Allen Boyd would repeatedly refer to plaintiff in “an age-related derogatory manner,” call plaintiff “old man” up to five or six times in a single day, and say plaintiff could not hear a ringing telephone because of plaintiffs age when he did not have a hearing problem. In 2009, defendant hired Noah Woods, a thirty-five (35) year old male to replace plaintiff as General Manager of Crossroads Ford. Plaintiff was demoted to the position of Director of Sales and Service. Plaintiff further alleged that on 26 April 2010, a salesman named Patrick Rowe approached plaintiff and informed him that a customer was interested in purchasing a used Mustang convertible. Rowe wanted to sell plaintiff’s wife’s car, a Mustang convertible that had been sitting in the back lot of Crossroads Ford since April 2010. Plaintiff agreed to sell his wife’s car “but told [Rowe] that they would have to work it out with Vice-President Boyd to determine Rowe’s commission and how to complete the sale.” The customer gave plaintiff a check for the vehicle but the vehicle was not tendered to the customer because plaintiff wanted to wait until he talked to Vice-President Boyd about the transaction. On or about 31 April 2010, Vice-President Boyd informed plaintiff by phone that he was terminated for stealing. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s reason for terminating plaintiff was false and pre-textual. On 5 January 2012, defendant filed an amended answer, denying many of plaintiff’s allegations. The amended answer admitted that Rowe advised customers that plaintiff was selling his wife’s used vehicle that was.sitting in defendant’s employee parking lot based on Rowe’s “understanding of corporate policy and his belief that Plaintiff had obtained authorization to sell his vehicle through the dealership [.]” Rowe heard plaintiff quote a sales price of $17,500.00 to one of the customers and “[t]hinking that the customer was going to finance the vehicle through the dealership, [Rowe] presented the customer with a credit application.” Plaintiff interceded, told Rowe that the credit application was not necessary, and told the customers to write a check payable to plaintiff personally. Defendant admitted that Vice-President Boyd confirmed to plaintiff that “his employment had been terminated for taking a corporate opportunity; selling his personal vehicle at the dealership to [a] customer of the dealership on company time with no benefit to the company and without authorization.” On 11 June 2012, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On 18 July 2012, plaintiff gave notice of filing of several documents including numerous depositions, an affidavit of Noah Woods, and several exhibits. On 20 July 2012, defendant filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Noah Woods and also filed numerous affidavits in support of its summary judgment motion. Following a hearing held on 23 July 2012, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summaiy judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice. From this order, plaintiff appeals. II. Standard of Review “Our standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 573, 669 S.E.2d 572, 576 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The moving party bears the burden of establishing the lack of a triable issue of fact. If the movant meets its burden, the nonmovant is then required to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating that the [nonmoving party] will be able to make out at least a prima facie case at trial. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the parties must be viewed in the fight most favorable to the non-movant. Thompson v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 151 N.C. App. 704, 706, 567 S.E.2d 184, 187 (2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). III. Discussion Plaintiff presents the following issues on appeal: (A) whether the trial comb erred by disregarding the affidavit of Noah Woods and (B) whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. A. Affidavit of Noah Woods Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by disregarding the affidavit of Noah Woods and finding that it was “presented at the 11th hour,” “inherently incredible,” and “inconsistent” with plaintiffs complaint. We agree. On 18 July 2012, plaintiff filed and served upon defense counsel the affidavit of Noah Woods, the thirty-five (35) year old who was hired by defendant to serve as General Manager of Crossroads Ford in 2009. Woods’ affidavit provided he was hired to replace plaintiff. It also stated the following, in pertinent part: 8. During the time that [plaintiff] and I worked together ..., I observed that Allen Boyd appeared to give [plaintiff] a hard time and to needle him. On several occasions I heard Allen refer to [plaintiff] as “old man.” 9. Allen Boyd did not use “old man” as a term of endearment. 10. Based upon my observations of the interactions between [plaintiff] and Allen Boyd, I would say that Allen Boyd knew that [plaintiff] did not like to be referred to as “old man” and that Allen Boyd could see that it was humiliating to [plaintiff.] 13. I am aware of the circumstances surrounding [plaintiff’s] termination from the company. 17. As the General Manager, I was fully aware of the sale. [Plaintiff] did not tiy to deceive anyone or hide the fact that he was selling the car. I approved of him selling the car to the customers. 18. [Plaintiff] was willing to pay a commission from the sale to Crossroads Ford and I did not think that there was anything wrong with his selling the car to the customers. 19. [Plaintiff] was going to let Allen Boyd know about the sale and work out a cut for Crossroads Ford with Allen. 20. On Friday, April 30, 2010, Allen Boyd called me and told me he wanted me to fire [plaintiff] for selling his car. 21. Although I disagreed with Allen’s decision, it was clear that Allen had already made up his mind[.] 24. I think Allen Boyd used the sale of [plaintiffs] car as a pretext to fire him. One of the principal reasons that Allen Boyd removed [plaintiff] from the position of General Manager and terminated him from his job was because of [plaintiff’s] age. On 20 July 2012, defendant filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Noah Woods. Although the trial court stated that it was not going to strike Woods’ affidavit during the 23 July 2012 hearing, in the 21 August 2012 summary judgment order, the trial court stated that [t]he Court finds that Woods’ affidavit is inherently incredible, presented at the 11th hour and therefore, does not create a material issue of fact to bootstrap [plaintiff] over the motion for summary judgment. Had Woods in fact approved of the sale as he now contends, the complaint would have contained these alleged facts. [Plaintiff] is simply using Woods as a “straw man” to put forth a last ditch yam that is inconsistent with the complaint and his sworn deposition testimony. It is crystal clear that , a party opposing a summary judgment motion cannot create an issue of fact by filing an affidavit that is in conflict with his prior sworn testimony. Woods’ affidavit is merely a surrogate for [plaintiff’s] inconsistent and newly created story that he had authority to sell the car from Woods. . . . Cousart v. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, 704 S.E.2d 540, 543-44 (2011); Carter v. West Am. Ins. Co., 190 N.C. App. 532, and Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 960 (4th Cir. 1984). Reduced to essentials, Woods’ last minute affidavit is incredible, contradictory to [plaintiffs] complaint and his sworn deposition testimony and cannot be used to create an issue of fact to forestall summary judgment. (emphasis added). In determining whether the trial court properly disregarded Woods’ affidavit, “[w]e review an order striking an affidavit for abuse of discretion.” Waterway Drive Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. Town of Cedar Point, _ N.C. App. _, _, 737 S.E.2d 126, 135-36 (2012) (citation omitted). First, we note that Woods’ affidavit was filed and served on defense counsel on 18 July 2012, five days prior to the 23 July 2012 hearing. This was in compliance with rule 6(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure which states that “opposing affidavits shall be served at least two days before the hearing.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 6(d) (2011). At the 23 July 2012 hearing, defense counsel stated that Woods’ affidavit “was timely filed and served on me. I don’t dispute that.” Therefore, the trial court erred by finding that because Woods’ affidavit was presented at the “11th hour,” it was inherently incredible. Further, all three of the cases cited by the trial court in its summary judgment order stand for the well-established proposition that “a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by filing an affidavit contradicting his prior sworn testimony.” Cousart v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 209 N.C. App. 299, 304, 704 S.E.2d 540, 543 (2011) (citation omitted) (emphasis added); See Carter v. West Am. Ins. Co., 190 N.C. App. 532, 539, 661 S.E.2d 264, 270 (2008) and Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 960 (4th Cir. 1984). These cases specifically state that a party cannot survive a motion for summary judgment by merely filing an affidavit that contradicts their own personal, prior sworn testimony. In the case before us, however, the substance of Noah Woods’ affidavit did not contradict any previous sworn testimony of Noah Woods. Therefore, we hold that Cousart, Carter, and Barwick are not applicable to the facts in this case and that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Woods’ affidavit inherently incredible. Next, we address whether it was improper for the trial court to find that Woods’ affidavit was inherently incredible because it was “inconsistent with [plaintiff’s] complaint” and “contradictory to [plaintiff’s complaint.]” Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Woods’ affidavit indicated that as General Manager of Crossroads Ford, Woods was aware of and approved the sale of plaintiff’s wife’s vehicle. The affidavit also showed that Woods believed that Vice-President Boyd used the sale of plaintiff’s wife’s vehicle as a pretext to terminate plaintiff. Woods believed that “[o]ne of the principal reasons [Vice President Boyd] removed [plaintiff] from the position of General Manager and terminated him from the job was because of [plaintiff’s] age.” The content of Woods’ affidavit was not contradictory to plaintiff’s complaint as the trial court’s summary judgment order states. Rather, it supported plaintiff’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated by defendant based on his age in violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding Woods’ affidavit based on the belief that it was inconsistent with plaintiff’s complaint. B. Summary Judgment Order Plaintiff argues that the trial court erroneously relied on the holding in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greens 411 U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and applied an incorrect burden of proof - placing the burden upon plaintiff to disprove defendant’s affirmative defense - in considering defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff argues that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of defendant where plaintiffs evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs age was the reason for his termination. We address each of these arguments in turn. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendant terminated him because of his age, in violation of North Carolina public policy as set forth in the Equal Employment Practices Act (“EEPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.1, et seq. The EEPA provides that [i]t is the public policy of this State to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees. N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2 (2011). “Our Supreme Court has directed that we look to federal decisions for guidance in establishing evidentiary standards and principles of law to be applied in discrimination cases.” Youse v. Duke Energy Corp., 171 N.C. App. 187, 193, 614 S.E.2d 396, 401 (2005) (quotations omitted) (citing Dept. of Correction v. Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 136, 301 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1983)). la McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Green, a black citizen of St. Louis, who had previously worked for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, an aerospace and aircraft manufacturer, as a mechanic and laboratory technician from 1956 until 28 August 1964 was “laid off in the course of a general reduction in [McDonnell Douglas Corp.’s] work force.” Id. at 794, 36 L.Ed.2d at 673. Green was a long-time civil rights activist and during the time he was laid off, “protested vigorously that his discharge and the general hiring practices of [McDonnell Douglas Corp.] were racially motivated.” Id. Three weeks following these activities, McDonnell Douglas Corp. publicly advertised for qualified mechanics and Green promptly applied for re-employment. Id. at 796, 36 L.Ed.2d at 674. McDonnell Douglas Corp. denied Green employment basing its rejection on Green’s protest activities. Id. Thereafter, Green filed an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that McDonnell Douglas Corp. had “refused to rehire him because of his race and persistent involvement in the civil rights movement[.]” Id. The Supreme Court of the United States in McDonnell Douglas established evidentiary standards to be applied “governing the disposition of an action challenging employment discrimination[.]” Id. at 798, 36 L.Ed.2d at 675. First, the claimant carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 802, 36 L.Ed.2d at 677. “The burden then must shift to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id. at 802, 36 L.Ed.2d at 678. If a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason has been articulated, the claimant has the opportunity to show that the employer’s stated reason for the claimant’s rejection was in fact pretext. Id. at 804, 36 L.Ed.2d 679. “[T]he North Carolina Supreme Court has explicitly adopted the Title VII evidentiary standards in evaluating a state claim under § 143-422.2 insofar as they do not conflict with North Carolina statutes and case law.” Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1383 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). N.C. Dep’t of Correction v. Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 301 S.E.2d 78 (1983), was an employment discrimination case based on race and our Supreme Court applied the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary standards in evaluating a claim brought under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2. In N.C. Dep’t of Grime Control & Pub. Safety v. Greene, 172 N.C. App. 530, 616 S.E.2d 594 (2005), our Court applied the McDonnell Douglas “scheme by which employees may prove [age] discrimination in employment.” Id. at 537, 616 S.E.2d at 600. Our Court noted that “[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the [employer] intentionally discriminated against the [employee] remains at ail times with the [employee].” Id. at 538, 616 S.E.2d at 600 (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not err by utilizing the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary standards. Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant where plaintiff’s evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s age was the reason for his termination. We agree. In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2, plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was qualified for [his] job and [his] job performance was satisfactory; (3) [he] was fired; and (4) other employees who are not members of the protected class were retained under apparently similar circumstances. Hughes, 48 F.3d at 1383 (citation omitted). To support his claim, plaintiffs forecast of evidence established that he was bom on 9 April 1950, making him 60 years old at the time of his termination. Plaintiff began working for defendant in 2000 as a Salesman and quickly became one of th

Marc Flagg vs. AliMed, Inc. Norfolk. January 8, 2013. July 19, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Anti-Discrimination Law, Employee, Employment, Handicap, Association, Termination of employment. Employment, Discrimination, Termination. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. Statute, Construction. Libel and Slander. Actionable Tort. This court concluded that, in the circumstances of a civil action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of handicap, the Superior Court judge erred in dismissing, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the plaintiff’s claim of associational discrimination, i.e., that the plaintiff’s employment had been terminated, despite the plaintiff being an otherwise qualified, adequately performing employee, because the defendant employer did not want to bear the burden of increased health care costs (under a family medical insurance benefit that the employer provided to the plaintiff) when the plaintiff’s wife developed a disabling medical condition, where the language and purpose of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), as well as decisions of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, favored an interpretation of the statute prohibiting employment discrimination based on the disability of a family member, and where Federal antidiscrimination statutes have been interpreted to allow claims of associational discrimination. [27-37] Gants, J., concurring, with whom Cordy, J., joined. In a civil action arising from the termination of the plaintiff from his employment, the Superior Court judge properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of defamation, where the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant employer had published to anyone a statement that the plaintiff fraudulently had obtained money from the employer. [37-38] Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 8, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by Patrick F. Brady, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Marc S. Alpert for the plaintiff. James J. Rooney for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse for New England Legal Foundation & another. J. Lynn Milinazzo-Gaudet for Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Rebecca G. Pontikes, Jonathan J. Margolis, & Beth R. Myers for National Employment Lawyers Association, Massachusetts Chapter, & others. Matthew Segal, Sarah Wunsch, Anne Josephson, & Richard S. Loftus for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts & others. Janet Steckel Lundberg for Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & Joshua D. Jacobson & Gabrielle Viator, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth. Botsford, J. The Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), bars employment discrimination on the basis of handicap. This case presents the question whether the statute bars an employer from discriminating against its employee based on the handicap of a person with whom the employee associates. We answer that, in the circumstances of this case, it does. Background. The plaintiff, Marc Flagg, appeals from the dismissal of his second amended complaint (complaint) against his former employer, the defendant, AliMed, Inc. (AliMed). The complaint contained claims of defamation and of employment discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 151B (c. 151B). We recite the pertinent facts alleged in the complaint. By February, 2008, the plaintiff had worked for AliMed for approximately eighteen years, and had received good job performance reviews. As an employee, the plaintiff received a salary and benefits, including family medical insurance, and an implied term of his employment was that AliMed would not terminate him because a family member developed a serious medical condition that involved considerable medical expense. On December 7, 2007, the plaintiff’s wife underwent surgery for removal of a brain tumor, and thereafter was receiving rehabilitative care. As a result, the plaintiff became responsible for caring for the couple’s children, including the obligation to pick up his daughter from school — a task that required him to be absent from work from about 2:55 p.m. until about 3:20 p.m. on certain days. The plaintiff’s manager at AliMed told him to take the time necessary to do what he had to do to care for his family. When the plaintiff left work to pick up his daughter on various days between December 27, 2007, and January 15, 2008,* ** he did not “punch out” — either when he went to pick up his daughter or after he had returned to work and was leaving at the end of the day. His manager knew the plaintiff was not punching out, and did not say anything to him about this practice. On February 4, 2008, however, AliMed terminated the plaintiff’s employment, proffering as its reason the fact that the plaintiff had failed to punch out on certain days when he left to pick up his daughter and therefore was being paid for hours that he had not actually worked. AliMed’s proffered reason for the termination was false: the real reason the plaintiff was terminated was that his wife had a very serious and expensive medical condition that rendered her totally disabled, and for which Ali-Med, through its health plan, was financially responsible. The February 4 employment termination took place at a time when the plaintiff’s wife was again a hospital inpatient because of a recurrence of the brain tumor, and the termination resulted in the immediate cancellation of the plaintiff’s health insurance and an initial denial of unemployment benefits. As a consequence, the plaintiff had to deplete his retirement plan funds and all his savings and suffered mental anguish. In addition, AliMed’s false reasons, and allegation that the plaintiff fraudulently was claiming that he had worked certain hours when he had not and thereby obtained money to which he was not entitled, “became known amongst fellow workers and the community at large,” likely leading people who learned of this allegation and who did not know him to conclude that the plaintiff “had engaged in serious deliberate misconduct” when in fact he had not done so. AliMed moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), as amended, 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and to strike portions of the complaint under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (f), as amended, 365 Mass. 754 (1974). After a hearing, a judge in the Superior Court allowed the motion to dismiss, ruling that (1) the claim of defamation was not pleaded adequately; and (2) the plaintiff’s claim of employment discrimination did not state a claim on which relief could be granted: “the theory that [AliMed] fired plaintiff because his wife was handicapped is not recognized in the Commonwealth.” A judgment of dismissal entered on December 28, 2010, and the plaintiff timely filed an appeal in the Appeals Court. We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion. Discussion. 1. Standard of review. In reviewing the correctness of the judge’s decision allowing AliMed’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, see Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), we “take as true ‘the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.’ ” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 45 (2004), citing Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995). To survive a motion to dismiss, the facts contained in the complaint, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, must “ ‘plausibly suggest[]’ ... an entitlement to relief” (citation omitted). Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). We consider first the plaintiff’s claim under G. L. c. 151B, and thereafter his defamation claim. 2. Violation of c. 151B. As the motion judge implicitly recognized, the plaintiff’s claim is one of associational discrimination. The term “associational discrimination” refers to a claim that a plaintiff, although not a member of a protected class himself or herself, is the victim of discriminatory animus directed toward a third person who is a member of the protected class and with whom the plaintiff associates. See, e.g., Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 512 (6th Cir. 2009), citing Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick & GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 994 (6th Cir. 1999). In substance, the c. 151B count of the complaint alleges that AliMed, the plaintiff’s employer, terminated his employment premised on discriminatory animus directed toward his handicapped wife, that is, its desire to be free from its obligation to pay for the wife’s costly medical treatment. The plaintiff’s argument is that this form of discrimination fits within the scope of c. 151B, § 4 (16) (§ 4 [16]), because it causes a direct and specific injury to the employee and represents “a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace,” College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987), which c. 151B, § 4, is intended to prevent. We agree. As we next discuss, interpreting § 4 (16) to encompass a claim of associational discrimination finds support in the language and purpose of that section and c. 151B more generally in the longstanding and consistent interpretation given to the statute by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (commission), and in the analogous provisions of Federal antidiscrimination statutes. Section 4 (16) provides in pertinent part that it shall be an unlawful practice, “[f]or any employer, personally or through an agent, to dismiss from employment or refuse to hire, rehire or advance in employment or otherwise discriminate against, because of his handicap, any person alleging to be a qualified handicapped person, capable of performing the essential functions of the position involved with reasonable accommodation, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation required to be made to the physical or mental limitations of the person would impose an undue hardship to the employer’s business” (emphasis added). AliMed argues that the language of this section precludes the plaintiff from raising a claim of associational handicap discrimination because the handicapped person at issue is not the plaintiff — its employee —■ but the plaintiff’s wife. AliMed reads the section too narrowly. “The general and familiar rule is that a statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be accomplished.” Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). See, e.g., Lopez v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. 696, 707 (2012) (interpreting c. 151B, § 4 [4A]). Accordingly, although a statute’s words are of prime importance in a court’s effort to discern legislative intent, see, e.g., Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572, 577 (2006), the words must be evaluated in the context of the overarching purpose of the statute itself. We begin, therefore, with the objectives and purposes of c. 151B. Chapter 151B was enacted in 1946 to provide remedies for employment discrimination, a practice viewed as harmful to “our democratic institutions” and a “hideous evil” that needs to be “extirpated.” The Legislature recognized that employment discrimination is often subtle and indirect, and that it may manifest itself “by so many devious and various means that no single corrective rule can be applied to prevent the injustices committed.” And the Legislature determined that workplace discrimination harmed not only the targeted individuals but the entire social fabric. See Gasior v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 446 Mass. 645, 653-654 (2006), quoting Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549, 563, cert. denied sub nom. Wilfert Bros. Realty Co. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 543 U.S. 979 (2004) (recognizing that in context of c. 151B, punitive damages intended “as not merely vindicating personal rights, but comprising part of a scheme to vindicate a ‘broader public interest in eradicating systemic discrimination’ ”). The remedial aims of the statute are “only broadly set out.” Dahill v. Police Dep’t of Boston, 434 Mass. 233, 239-240 (2001) (Dahill), quoting Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 204 (1981). The Legislature gave the commission comprehensive agency powers to effectuate the statute’s aims, and expressly directed that c. 151B “be construed liberally for the accomplishment of its purposes.” G. L. c. 151B, § 9. The statutory provisions that proscribe employment discrimination based on handicap — § 4 (16) and derivatively c. 151B, § 1 (16), (17), and (19) — were added primarily in 1983. See St. 1983, c. 533, §§ 2, 6. They were enacted three years after the Legislature ratified an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution prohibiting all discrimination based on handicap. See art. 114 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. Read against the backdrop of this constitutional amendment as well as the command of c. 151B, § 9, to interpret the statute liberally in order to effectuate its remedial purposes, these provisions can only be understood as establishing an expansive, categorical prohibition against discrimination based on handicap in the workplace generally. When an employer subjects an otherwise satisfactory employee to adverse employment decisions premised on hostility toward the handicapped condition of the employee’s spouse, it is treating the employee as if he were handicapped himself — that is, predicated on discriminatory animus, the employer treats the spouse’s handicap as a characteristic bearing on the employee’s fitness for his job. The employee is thereby subjected to the type of “prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear” relating to handicapped individuals that c. 151B, § 4 (16), seeks to protect against. See Cox v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 414 Mass. 375, 383-384 (1993), quoting School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 (1987). Cf. Dahill, 434 Mass. at 240-241. Reading the statutory language broadly in light of its remedial purpose, and in order best to effectuate the Legislature’s intent, we think that the concept of associational discrimination also furthers the more general purposes of c. 151B as a wide-ranging law, “seeking] . . . removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to full participation in the workplace” that are based on discrimination. College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987). See Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 391-392, cert. denied sub nom. Globe Newspaper Co., Inc. v. Ayash, 546 U.S. 927 (2005) (c. 151B is “comprehensive statute” and was enacted “to provide judicial and administrative remedies for destructive acts of discrimination in the workplace”). See also Lopez v. Commonwealth, 463 Mass. at 707. Significantly, c. 151B expressly gives standing to seek relief to “[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved” by practices made unlawful by the statute (emphasis added). G. L. c. 151B, § 5. This section, using the same language as a cognate provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (2006 & Supp. V 2011) (Title VII), offers strong support for the conclusion that c. 151B’s protections against workplace discrimination were intended to cover all those adversely affected, whether or not they are the direct target of the proscribed discriminatory animus. Cf. Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863, 869-870 (2011) (interpreting phrase “person claiming to be aggrieved” in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5[b] [2006]). We return to the language of § 4 (16). The section declares it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against, “because of his handicap, any person alleging to be a qualified handicapped person.” The key term in § 4 (16) is “handicap.” It is defined in relevant part to mean “(a) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major Ufe activities of a person; (b) a record of having such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment’ (emphasis added). G. L. c. 151B, § 1 (17). The third prong of the definition “protects those persons who, whether actually impaired or not, may be the victims of stereotypic assumptions, myths, and fears regarding such limitations.” Dahill, 434 Mass. at 241. We read this broad definition, and especially its third prong, as a signal that the Legislature intended § 4 (16) to prevent an employer’s animus against disabihty from adversely affecting not just those employees with actual handicaps but essentially all members of its workforce, because every employee theoretically has the potential for “being regarded” by the employer as having an impairment. When an employer takes adverse action against its employee because of his spouse’s impairment, it is targeting the employee as the direct victim of its animus, inflicting punishment for exactly the same reason and in exactly the same way as if the employee were handicapped himself. In other words, an employee treated in such a manner by his employer suffers precisely the same type of discrimination as an employee whom the employer directly but incorrectly “regard[s] as” being handicapped. In light of the Legislature’s expansive definition of “handicap,” and keeping in mind its command concerning liberal construction of the statute, see c. 151B, § 9, we conclude that the language of § 4 (16) is properly read to accommodate the concept of handicap discrimination based on association. Importantly, our interpretation of § 4 (16)’s language is one that the commission itself has adopted and consistently followed. “The primary responsibility to determine the scope of [c. 151B] has been entrusted to the [commission], not to the courts,” Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981), and we generally afford the commission’s interpretation of c. 151B’s provisions substantial deference. See, e.g., Dahill, supra at 239. See also, e.g., Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of Amesbury v. Housing Appeals Comm., 457 Mass. 748, 759-760 (2010). For over thirty years, the commission, through its decisions, has interpreted c. 151B, § 4, to protect against employment discrimination based on association, including associational discrimination based on handicap. See, e.g., Dittbenner v. Hopeo Auto Parts, Inc., 11 Mass. Discrimination L. Rep. 1139 (1989) (person aggrieved due to association with disabled individual has standing to bring claim under c. 151B before commission). This longstanding interpretation of § 4 (16) by the commission offers “illuminating” guidance to us, see Dahill, 434 Mass. at 239, and we accord it the deference to which it is due. It is also significant that analogous Federal antidiscrimination statutes, Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (2006 & Supp. V 2011) (Rehabilitation Act), have been interpreted to reach and cover claims of associational discrimination despite a lack of a specific reference in the statutory language. See Wheatley v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 418 Mass. 394, 397 (1994) (“It is our practice to apply Federal case law construing the Federal anti-discrimination statutes in interpreting G. L. c. 151B”). Title VII focuses on discrimination in employment, and “share[s] substantial common ground” with c. 151B. See Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 450 Mass. 327, 337-338 (2008). While Title VII do