Failure to Accommodate Cases

Michael Mammone vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Middlesex. January 4, 2006. May 12, 2006. Present: Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ. Employment, Discrimination, Termination. Anti-Discrimination Law, Employment, Handicap, Termination of employment. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Federal Rehabilitation Act. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Words, “Qualified handicapped person.” This court concluded that a handicapped employee suffering from bipolar disorder, who was terminated for egregious workplace misconduct that was sufficiently inimical to the interests of his employer that it would have resulted in the termination of a nonhandicapped employee, was not a qualified handicapped person within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B, and therefore was not entitled to the protection of that statute, where the reasoning of Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55 (1995), which held that non-handicapped and handicapped employees who engage in egregious workplace misconduct are subject to the same standard, was not limited to cases involving misconduct resulting from drug or alcohol dependence, and where no legislative intent to create different protections against discrimination to persons based on the form of their disability could be discerned. [665-680] Greaney, J., dissenting. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 26, 2003. The case was heard by Ralph D. Gants, J., on a motion for summary judgment, and entry of judgment dismissing the plaintiff s complaint was ordered by Raymond J. Brassard, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Betsy L. Ehrenberg {.Rebecca G. Pontikes with her) for the plaintiff. John P Coakley {Richard J. Riley with him) for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Beverly I. Ward & John Lozada for Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Susan Stefan for Center for Public Representation & others. Cordy, J. On March 7, 2003, Harvard University terminated the seven-year employment of Michael Mammone. Mammone, who suffers from bipolar disorder and claims that he was terminated due to his mental disability, brought suit against the President and Fellows of Harvard College (university) under the Commonwealth’s employment discrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), and Equal Rights Act, G. L. c. 93, § 103. Relying principally on this court’s decision in Garrity v. United Airlines, Inc., 421 Mass. 55 (1995) (Garrity), a judge in the Superior Court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, because of his misconduct in the workplace, Mammone could not reasonably expect to prove that he was a “qualified handicapped person,” a required showing for protection under both statutes. A “qualified handicapped person” is one “who is capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job, or who would be capable of performing the essential functions of a particular job with reasonable accommodation to his handicap.” G. L. c. 151B, § 1 (16). In granting summary judgment, the judge found that the workplace misconduct that led to Mam-mane’s termination was egregious and sufficiently inimical to the interests of his employer that it would have resulted in the termination of a nonhandicapped employee. In these circumstances, the judge concluded, it would be impossible for Mammone to show that he was “capable of performing the essential functions” of his job. Mammone appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. Mammone contends that the reasoning of Garrity — that a handicapped employee who engages in egregious workplace misconduct can be held to the same standard as a nonhandicapped employee who engages in similar misconduct — should be strictly limited to cases involving misconduct resulting from drug or alcohol dependence (as opposed to other handicaps). We conclude otherwise. Nothing in the language we used in Garrity suggests that our holding was meant to be so narrow, and we do not discern any legislative intent to create a distinction that would provide different protections against discrimination to persons suffering from one form of handicap (alcoholism) than the protections provided to persons suffering from other disabilities. Because we conclude that Garrity applies to all employment discrimination cases brought under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), and G. L. c. 93, § 103, regardless of the type of handicap underlying the workplace misconduct, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. 1. Factual background. We recount the facts in their light most favorable to Mammone. See, e.g., Joslyn v. Chang, 445 Mass. 344, 345 (2005); Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass 117, 120 (1991), citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974). Mammone worked as a staff assistant at the university’s Peabody Museum (museum) from January, 1996, until his termination on March 7, 2003. He was usually stationed at the museum’s receptionist desk in the main lobby. Among other responsibilities, Mammone was required to direct individual visitors and tour groups to destinations inside the museum, as well as answer any questions such guests might have. In this position, Mammone had significant contact with the public. Mammone suffers from bipolar disorder. This mental disease manifests itself in occasional periods of mania (of which paranoia, agitation, hyperactivity, and irrationality are symptoms) and occasional periods of depression. Although Mammone was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1987, there is no evidence that, previous to the incidents at issue in this case, his mental disease ever negatively affected his ability to perform his workplace duties. Indeed, there is scant evidence that any of Mammone’s supervisors or coworkers knew of Mammone’s health problems before the events in question. During the course of his employment, Mammone received both annual salary increases and positive formal reviews from supervisors. In the middle of August, 2002, Mammone apparently experienced a manic episode. This episode led to workplace misconduct that eventually resulted in his termination. On August 18, Mammone established a website to decry what he believed were the low wages the university pays some of its employees. On August 20, while on duty at the museum, he began to distribute flyers summarizing and advertising his website. He also engaged coworkers in loud and animated conversations regarding his website and its content. He frequently used his personal laptop computer to access and update his website during his shift. According to his own testimony, Mammone would sing along with, clap to, and dance to protest songs from his website while stationed at the receptionist desk. On August 22, Mammone’s supervisor, Michele Piponidis, informed him, both orally and in writing, that he should not use his laptop computer at work. The next day Mammone sent an electronic mail message to Piponidis refusing to follow her instructions. He continued to bring his laptop computer to work, and to use it in the manner described above, until the date of his termination. Mammone’s manic episode appeared to reach its zenith between August 29 and September 4. On August 29, when he could not find the keys to his house, he began to believe that a conspiracy had formed against him. That night, Mammone stayed at a local YMCA. However, because he believed persons at the YMCA were also involved in the conspiracy, he telephoned the police the next morning. Although Mammone thereafter was brought to a hospital for overnight examination, he did not meet the criteria for involuntary civil commitment and was thus released at his own insistence on August 31. On September 3, subsequent to the Labor Day holiday, Mammone returned to work, his mania only worsening. That day, a staff member of the museum’s public programs office explained to Piponidis that Mammone’s “belligerent attitude is not only affecting [the museum’s] staff, but also visitors to the museum.” That night, Mammone was contacted by his union representative, who left him with the impression that Piponidis was seeking to meet with Mammone and a representative of the university’s office of labor and employee relations for the purpose of terminating his employment. On the morning of September 4, 2002, Mammone arrived at work in brightly colored, traditional East Indian dress and adorned with necklaces, bracelets, and rings. While at his desk, he telephoned the police, his mother, his sister, and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and spoke to each person “very loudly.” When Piponidis approached him and asked him to join her in a private conference room, Mammone refused. He dismissively flicked his hand at her, saying, “Psst, get away from me, you’re evil.” Piponidis left the lobby and returned with both Mary Reynolds, the museum’s human resources administrator, and two university police officers. The officers informed Mammone that Piponidis and Reynolds wanted him to leave the museum and attend a meeting at the university’s office of labor and employee relations the following day. When Mammone refused the officers’ request, they explained that if he did not leave after five warnings, he would be arrested for trespassing. After the officers’ second warning, Mammone left his desk and sat on the floor in the middle of the lobby. After another three warnings, the officers handcuffed Mammone and placed him under arrest. Because he refused to move, the officers were forced to drag Mammone from the museum. During his arrest, he was told by the police not to return “here.” Mammone was charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct and arraigned in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department. Immediately after his arraignment, Mammone walked back to the museum area to assure his friend, who had witnessed the incident, that he was unharmed. Mammone waited outside the museum for the end of his friend’s shift. Then, before the end of the workday, Mammone entered the lobby of a second university museum, the Museum of Natural History, which was adjacent to and internally connected with the museum. Mammone did not believe that the arresting officer’s admonition not to return “here” included any location other than the museum itself. Using a telephone in the lobby of the Museum of Natural History, Mammone telephoned the ACLU. During this conversation, Piponidis saw Mammone, approached him, and instructed him to leave the building. Mammone ended his telephone call, left the telephone booth, pointed at Piponidis (and Reynolds, who had joined Piponidis in the lobby close to the telephone booth), and stated, “You fucking whack bitches are going down.” Mammone then walked past the women and left the building. Reynolds followed Mammone and hailed a nearby university police officer, who told Mammone to leave the university’s campus. On that same day, after Mammone’s arrest, but before the confrontation in the Museum of Natural History, Piponidis had written and sent to Mammone a “final written warning,” see note 15, supra, summarizing his problematic workplace misconduct and indicating that this misconduct had “become progressively more and more disruptive” and was “completely unacceptable.” The next day, September 5, Piponidis sent a superseding letter to Mammone, informing him that his return to the museum after his arrest, his subsequent conduct toward Piponidis and Reynolds, and the conduct described in the previous letter was grounds for immediate discharge and that this discharge was “effective at the end of business . . . September 4, 2002.” At some point over the next few days, Mammone’s union representative convinced officials at the university not to “process [Mammone’s] termination immediately so that [he] could apply for short-term disability [benefits].”, Piponidis then wrote a third letter to Mammone which superseded the September 5 letter, confirming that the university would “delay the effective date of [his] termination ... to allow [him] an opportunity to apply for Short-term Disability . . . benefits.” The letter explained that Mammone’s employment would terminate “effective the day the . . . benefits end.” Mammone first applied for disability benefits on September 9, 2002. Based on a September 12 examination, Dr. Irving Allen, a psychiatrist at the university’s health services, informed the university’s disability claims unit that Mammone could not work due to a bipolar disorder and recurrent depression, and that this incapacity would likely last between thirty and ninety days. Mammone’s application was granted on September 23. On October 22, Dr. Allen recommended another sixty days of disability benefits, explaining that Mammone’s “irritability . . . and agitation persist.” On December 12, Dr. Allen requested that Mammone be given an additional sixty days of benefits, noting that, while Mammone was “making significant improvement,” he was “not stable enough to return to work.” A similar request was successfully made by Dr. Allen on January 30, 2003. In clinician notes dated February 14, 2003, Dr. Allen reported marked improvement, but added that Mammone was “feeling depressed” and that “[t]here are still tinges of mania . . . .” On March 5, 2003, Mammone’s disability benefits expired. On March 7, 2003, his termination became effective. Although a jury could have found that Mammone was well enough to return to work on that date, there was no evidence that Dr. Allen or anyone else ever informed the university that this was the case. On December 9, 2002, approximately three months after Mammone began receiving short-term disability benefits, an attorney informed the university in writing that she had been retained to represent Mammone in a discrimination action against the university. Her letter noted that the university had offered Mammone “[n]o reasonable accommodation, such as time off in which to get better . . . .” 2. Discussion, a. Standard of review. A moving party will prevail on summary judgment, where the party opposing the motion bears the burden of proof at trial, only if the moving party demonstrates, by reference to the material described in mie 56 (c), unmet by countervailing materials, that the nonmoving party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of the case. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). It is sufficient that the moving party demonstrate that “proof of [a required] element is unlikely to be forthcoming at trial.” Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 809 (1991). b. The Garrity decision. In Garrity, a terminated United Airlines customer service representative, Mary Garrity, brought a discrimination claim against her former employer under G. L. c. 15IB. We affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant airline because we concluded that Garrity could not reasonably expect to prove that she was a qualified handicapped person, as defined in G. L. c. 151B, § 1 (16). Id. at 63. Because establishing that she was “qualified for the position from which she was fired” is a requirement of a prima facie case under G. L. c. 151B, Garrity’s inability to do so was fatal to her claim. See id. at 60, 63. Garrity suffered from alcoholism. As part of her employment, she was asked to distribute “chits” to passengers, which could be exchanged for free drinks during flight. When some passengers declined the chits, Garrity, irresistibly compelled by her disease, kept them for herself. After her shift, she boarded a United Airlines flight, paying a significantly reduced employee fare. On the flight, Garrity exchanged the chits for free drinks, “became intoxicated and began drawing attention to herself and to the fact that she was a United Airlines employee.” Id. at 57. Garrity “demanded excessive service and attention” and complained to and in front of passengers “about how United ‘screws us.’ ” Id. United Airlines terminated Garrity for “violating company policies by accepting ‘drink chits’ from customers, using those chits while flying on a United pass . . . and for becoming intoxicated” while on the flight. Id. at 59. In affirming summary judgment, we reasoned that a disabled individual cannot be a qualified handicapped person “if he commits misconduct which would disqualify an individual who did not fall under the protection of the statute” (i.e., a non-handicapped employee). See id. at 62-63, quoting Wilber v. Brady, 780 F. Supp. 837, 840 (D.D.C. 1992). We noted that “[n]othing in c. 151B suggests a legislative intent that a lower standard of qualifying conduct should apply to handicapped employees than applies to those without handicap.” Garrity, supra at 63. Garrity confirmed the commonsense notion that an employee is not “qualified” for a particular job — i.e., cannot perform the essential functions of that job, even with reasonable accommodation — if he or she takes part in “egregious misconduct” in the workplace. See id. at 62-63, quoting Little v. Federal Bur. of Investigation, 1 F.3d 255, 258-259 (4th Cir. 1993) (“ ‘[A]n employer . . . must be permitted to terminate its employee on account of egregious misconduct, irrespective of whether the employee is handicapped.’ ... [A] handicapped employee who engages in conduct significantly inimical to the interests of his employer and in violation of the employer’s rules ... is not a ‘qualified handicapped person’ within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B”). c. Applicability of Garrity to the present case. Mammone’s workplace misconduct, which took place over the course of two weeks, was at least as egregious and inimical to his employer’s interest as was the misconduct for which Garrity was terminated. Mammone intentionally disregarded his supervisor’s instructions regarding the use of his personal computer during work. Instead of acting as the professional face of the museum to visitors, he created numerous unprofessional disturbances for the public to witness at the exact location where they would decide whether to purchase admission to the museum. He exhorted his coworkers to do the same. During his shift, Mammone distributed flyers summarizing and advertising a website critical of the university and his supervisors. Certainly this misconduct was as inimical to his employer’s interests as were Garrity’s complaints to customers and employees about United Airlines, her demands for excessive service and attention from flight attendants, and her drawing of attention to herself as an unprofessional United Airlines employee. Mammone’s misconduct on September 4, however, was by far the most egregious of his actions. First, he abusively dismissed his supervisor’s request to meet with her to discuss his behavior. Then he refused a request made by his supervisor and the museum human resources administrator to leave the museum and attend a meeting at the university’s office of labor and employee relations the next day. Finally, he refused five lawful police orders to leave the premises, chose to become a trespasser, and forced the police to create a spectacle by physically carrying him out of the museum. Later that day, on his return to the museum area, Mammone used objectively abusive, threatening, and sexually derogatory language to his supervisor and the human resources administrator, violating all reasonable standards expected at a place of business and public accommodation. Cf. Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1052 (5th Cir. 1998) (Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] does not protect employee’s “emotional or violent outbursts,” such as “get that f_ing finger out of my face” or “[y]ou f_ing bitch!,” even if such misconduct attributable to employee’s posttraumatic stress disorder); Maes v. Henderson, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1283, 1286, 1289 (D. Nev. 1999) (where “Postal Service dem

Richard Gasior vs. Massachusetts General Hospital. Suffolk. January 3, 2006. May 11, 2006. Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, S osman, & Cordy, JJ. Employment, Discrimination. Anti-Discrimination Law, Handicap, Termination of employment, Damages. Damages, Under anti-discrimination law, Punitive. Statute, Construction. Practice, Civil, Survival of action. Survival of Action. This court concluded, pursuant to the Massachusetts survival statute, G. L. c. 228, § 1, that a claim that an employee was wrongfully dismissed in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), survives the employee’s death [648-653], as do all of the remedies available to the employee under G. L. c. 151B, including punitive damages [653-656], Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 19, 2001. A motion to dismiss was heard by Bonnie H. MacLeod, J., and a question of law was reported by her. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Shannon Liss-Riordan for the plaintiff. Frank E. Reardon {John R Puleo with him) for the defendant. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Jonathan J. Margolis & Robert S. Mantell for Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association. Beverly I. Ward for Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Marshall, C.J. We consider in this case whether an employee’s claim of unlawful employment termination in violation of G. L. c. 15IB, § 4 (16), survives the employee’s death and, if so, what damages may be awarded. The employee, Richard Gasior, filed a complaint against his employer, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), claiming it had violated G. L. c. 15IB, § 4, and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (MERA), G. L. c. 93, § 103, by refusing to permit him to return to work as a plumber after an authorized medical leave of absence. While the case was pending, Gasior died for reasons unrelated to his authorized medical leave. MGH thereupon moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that Gasior’s discrimination claim did not survive his death, and that his MERA claim was barred by the exclusivity provision of G. L. c. 151B. A judge in the Superior Court denied MGH’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claim insofar as Gasior claimed compensatory damages, but allowed its motion as to that claim insofar as he claimed punitive damages. She also allowed MGH’s motion as to Gasi- or’s MERA claim. On a joint motion of the parties, the judge then reserved and reported to the Appeals Court pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. R 64, as amended, 423 Mass. 1410 (1996), so much of her ruling as concerned Gasior’s discrimination claim: “Does an employment discrimination claim under G. L. c. 151B, § 4, survive the plaintiff’s death pursuant to G. L. c. 228, § 1, insofar as the plaintiff claims compensatory but not punitive damages?” We granted Gasior’s application for direct appellate review. We address the narrow question presented by the circumstances of this case, not the broader question reported by the judge. See McStowe v. Bornstein, 377 Mass. 804, 805 n.2 (1979) (“Reported questions need not be answered . . . except to the extent that it is necessary to do so in resolving the basic issue”). We conclude that a claim that an employee was wrongfully dismissed in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), survives the employee’s death. We therefore affirm so much of the order as denied MGH’s motion to dismiss. We further conclude that all of the remedies available to the employee under G. L. c. 15 IB survive his death. We therefore vacate so much of the judge’s decision that allowed MGH’s motion to dismiss as to punitive damages. 1. Background. The issue for our consideration is the correctness of the interlocutory order entered in the Superior Court on MGH’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). See McStowe v. Bornstein, supra. Although MGH challenges some of the factual allegations in Gasior’s complaint, in particular the circumstances of Gasior’s efforts to return to work as a plumber, we review the question under the settled standard of review for a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 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 ...” Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995). In evaluating the allowance of a motion to dismiss, we are guided by the principle that a complaint is sufficient “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977) ....’” Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd., 442 Mass. 43, 45 (2004). Under the “generous principles” that govern our review, Connerty v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n, 398 Mass. 140, 143 (1986), we summarize the facts alleged in the unverified complaint. Gasior worked as a plumber for MGH for nineteen years, beginning in 1981. In February, 2000, he began an authorized medical leave of absence because of a heart condition. A physician approved Gasior’s return to work in August, 2000. Gasior claims that from that time forward he was able to perform the essential functions of his job as a plumber “with or without reasonable accommodation,” and that despite repeated attempts to return to his job as a plumber, MGH refused to permit him to return to work at that time, notwithstanding that MGH had posted several openings for plumbers. In June, 2001, after exhausting his administrative remedies by filing a claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Gasior filed a complaint in the Superior Court. He requested relief consisting of reinstatement, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs, and any other relief to which he might be entitled. At some point while his action was pending, Gasior became terminally ill. He filed motions to advance his trial date, but died in September, 2003, one week before the trial was scheduled to begin. 2. Survival of the discrimination claim. We first discuss the survival of Gasior’s G. L. c. 151B claim under the Massachusetts survival statute, G. L. c. 228, § l. We then turn to the issue of the relief that may be available. The Massachusetts survival statute, G. L. c. 228, § 1, provides in pertinent part that, “[i]n addition to the actions which survive by the common law,” certain enumerated claims, including certain specifically identified tort claims, survive the death of a party. A claim of employment discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), is not a claim among those specifically enumerated in the statute. To remain viable after Gasior’s death, therefore, the claim must fall within one of the enumerated tort claims or be deemed an action that survives “by the common law.” G. L. c. 228, § 1. Generally speaking, at common law contract claims, including those based on an implied contract, survive the death of a party. See Rendek v. Sheriff of Bristol County, 440 Mass. 1017 (2003); McStowe v. Bornstein, supra at 806-807, and cases cited. We have not previously decided whether a claim of discrimination pursuant to G. L. c. 151B survives a plaintiff’s death. In other circumstances, in assessing whether a claim survives a party’s death, we have observed that “[w]hat constitutes a contract claim has not been rigidly defined.” Rendek v. Sheriff of Bristol County, supra at 1017. We have also recognized the close relationship between some employment discrimination claims and actions for what we have characterized as breaches of contract. See id. at 1017-1018 (claim for unlawful termination in violation of G. L. c. 35, § 51, is “contractual, or quasi contractual,” and therefore survives plaintiff’s death, because statute “control[s] a critical term of the employment — permissible grounds for termination”). See also Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549, 582 (2004) (Sosman, J., concurring) (“some discrimination claims are ‘rooted’ in theories of contract [in essence reading the prohibitions of G. L. c. 151B into the parties’ employment contract and then allowing suit for ‘breach’ of that contract]”). In this case, we are presented with a specific question of alleged discrimination: does the claim of a plaintiff who has an established employment relationship with the defendant and who alleges that he was wrongfully dismissed or not reinstated by his employer, survive the plaintiff’s death? The answer turns in part on the nature of the employment relationship. Gasior claimed that he had a “good work record” and received “positive performance evaluations” while working at MGH, but his complaint is otherwise silent as to any other aspect of his employment relationship with MGH. Gasior has not, for example, alleged the existence of an employment contract for a definite period, or that he was a member of a union protected by any collective bargaining agreement that might govern his termination. We therefore assume, without deciding, that he was an at-will employee at MGH. See Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Dev., Inc., 403 Mass. 8, 9 (1988). See also S.C. Moriearty, J.F. Adkins, L.F. Rubin, & D.J. Jackson, Employment Law § 2.3, at 94 (2d ed. 2003) (“Presumptively the employment relationship is at-will, meaning that either party may terminate the relationship at any time, with or without cause”). Although we have not characterized every at-will employment relationship as itself constituting a form of contract — such a relationship could, for example, be viewed as a contract of successive performances of indefinite duration — we have had no difficulty in concluding that an at-will employment relationship contains implied terms, the breach of which is actionable. See, e.g., DeRose v. Putnam Mgt. Co., 398 Mass. 205, 210 (1986) (permitting at-will employee to recover damages on a breach of contract theory for discharge in violation of public policy); Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 101 (1977) (written contract for at-will employment “contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a termination not made in good faith constitutes a breach of the contract”). See also Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Dev., Inc., supra at 9 (recognizing that prohibition against discrimination in employment contained in G. L. c. 151B, § 4, restricts employer’s ability to discharge at-will employee). Here, the relevant provisions of G. L. c. 15 IB controlled a term of Gasior’s employment at MGH: that term prohibited MGH from dismissing or refusing to reinstate him because of invidious, discrimination. See G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16). Because Gasior has alleged that MGH did not permit him to return to work after his medical leave in violation of this implied contractual term of his employment relationship with MGH, his claim is among those that survive “by the common law.” See Rendek v. Sheriff of Bristol County, supra. See also United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 247-248 (1992) (Sauter, J., concurring) (Tide VB’s statutory ban on employment discrimination “easily envisioned as a contractual term implied by law”); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 74 (1984) (“Once a contractual relationship of employment is established, the provisions of Title VII attach and govern certain aspects of that relationship”). Our holding that a claim by an employee that he suffered invidious discrimination when he was dismissed or not reinstated by his employer survives his death is consistent with the decisional law of the majority of courts that have considered analogous questions. See, e.g., Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 630 (1984) (former employee’s claim that employer refused to permit him to return to work following a disabling accident, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, survives his death); Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry, 769 F.2d 958, 962 n.3 (4th Cir. 1985) (former employee’s claim that he had been terminated in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] survives his death as matter of Federal law); Hawes v. Johnson & Johnson, 940 F. Supp. 697, 704 (D.N.J. 1996) (former employee’s claim of constructive discharge in violation of the ADEA and the New Jersey law against discrimination survives his death as a matter of Federal common law and under State survival statute, respectively); Duart v. FMC Wyo. Corp., 859 F. Supp. 1447, 1451 n.2 (D. Wyo. 1994) (former employee’s claim that he had been terminated from employment in violation of the ADEA survives his death); Shkolnik v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 82, 88 (D. Conn. 1994) (former employee’s claim that he had been terminated from employment in violation of the ADEA survives his death); Anspach v. Tomkins Indus., Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1499, 1510 (D. Kan. 1993) (former employee’s Title VII claim survives his death under State survival statute); Small v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 759 F. Supp. 1427, 1430 (W.D. Mo. 1991) (former employee’s claim that he was discriminated against and ultimately terminated because of his race, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, survives his death under State survival statute); Oliver v. United States Army, 758 F. Supp. 484, 485 (E.D. Ark. 1991) (former employee’s claim that his employer failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, leading him to terminate his employment, survives his death pursuant to State survival statute); Worsowicz v. Nashua Corp., 612 F. Supp. 310, 312 (D.N.H. 1985) (former employee’s claim that he had been terminated from employment in violation of the ADEA survives his death); Pedreyra v. Cornell Prescription Pharmacies, Inc., 465 F. Supp. 936, 939 (D. Colo. 1979) (former employee’s claim that she was terminated in violation of Title VII survives her death pursuant to State survival statute). We conclude that Gasior’s claim that MGH violated G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), by dismissing or refusing to reinstate him following an authorized medical leave, survives his death. We turn next to the issue of damages. 3. Survival of punitive damages. Relying on Harrison v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 379 Mass. 212, 216-217 (1979), the judge concluded that Gasior could recover compensatory damages, but that there was “no doubt” that Gasior’s claim for punitive damages abated because it is “punitive rather than compensatory in nature.” We recognize that the purpose of punitive damages has been described as punishment and deterrence, rather than compensation of an injured party, see, e.g., Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 266-267 (1981), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 (1979), and — in the context of G. L. c. 151B — as not merely vindicating personal rights, but comprising part of a scheme to vindicate a “broader public interest in eradicating systemic discrimination.” Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549, 563 (2004). Consistent with the broad remedial purposes of G. L. c. 151B, which both mandates that the provision concerning remedies available to the victims of discrimination be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the statute’s purposes, G. L. c. 151B, § 9, and acts as a deterrent to those employers who engage in invidious discrimination, we conclude that to the extent a deceased plaintiffs discrimination claim survives him, he should have available to him all of the remedies provided under the antidiscrimination statute. This includes punitive damages. See G. L. c. 15IB, § 9 (petitioner may be awarded “actual and punitive damages”); Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 445 Mass. 611, 624 (2005) (punitive damages may be awarded for employment discrimination in violation of G. L. c. 151B). We see no reason to distinguish as to statutory remedies between a plaintiff who has suffered the indignities of unlawful discrimination (if proved) and who survives, and a similarly aggrieved plaintiff who is deceased, simply because the exigencies of court scheduling may delay the granting of relief until after the plaintiffs death. As Gasior noted, individuals claiming unlawful discrimination must first exhaust their administrative remedies, see G. L. c. 151B, § 9, and their cases sometimes take years to reach resolution. It would cause grave injustices to those plaintiffs who have embarked on the often burdensome and expensive journey to vindicate their rights if the full scope of their damages were to evaporate simply because of the fortuity of death. Our conclusion is consistent with the broad remedial purposes underlying this Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination statutes, which we have repeatedly emphasized in construing G. L. c. 151B. See, e.g., Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367, 390 (2005) (statutory limitations on tort liability of charitable entities do not “shield charitable institutions from the full effects of liability under G. L. c. 151B”); Bain v. Springfield, 424 Mass. 758, 763 (1997) (Commonwealth and its political subdivisions are liable for damages for violations of G. L. c. 151B); Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 402 Mass. 385, 387 (1988) (damage award for lost future earnings and benefits, or “front pay,” available pursuant to G. L. c. 151B, § 9). The Legislature has provided for a broad range of remedies, including the availability of punitive damages, to those who suffer invidious discrimination. See G. L. c. 151B, § 9. In determining whether Gasior’s estate should be deprived of damages to which he himself would have been entitled had he survived, “we need not look beyond the words of the statute where the language is plain and unambiguous.” State Bd. of Retirement v. Boston Retirement Bd., 391 Mass. 92, 94 (1984). Our decision that Gasior may have access to all of the remedies available under G. L. c. 15IB is also consistent with the Legislature’s determination that the “remedies provision contained in § 9 expressly states that it should be ‘construed liberally for the accomplishment of’ the purposes of G. L. c. 151B and that ‘any law inconsistent with any provision [of G. L. c. 15 IB] shall not apply.’ ” Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., supra at 391-392, quoting G. L. c. 151B, § 9. 4. Conclusion. A claim that an employee was wrongfully dismissed in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (16), survives the employee’s death, as do all of the remedies available to him under G. L. c. 151B. We affirm so much of the judge’s order as denied MGH’s motion to dismiss, and vacate so much of her order as allowed MGH’s motion as to punitive damages. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. So ordered. following Richard Gasior’s death, his attorney moved to substitute Gasi- or’s estate as the plaintiff. The motion is pending resolution of this appeal. For ease of reference we shall refer to the plaintiff as Gasior. As noted above, Gasior also alleged that MGH had violated his rights under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (MERA), G. L. c. 93, § 103. The judge allowed MGH’s motion to dismiss as to that claim, but did not report that aspect of her order to the Appeals Court. We therefore do not consider it. We acknowledge the amicus briefs filed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association. General Laws c. 228, § 1, provides: “In addition to the actions which survive by the common law, the following shall survive: — “(1) Actions under chapter two hundred and forty-seven; “(2) Actions of tort (a) for assault, battery, imprisonment or other damage to the person; (b) for consequential damages arising out of injury to the person and consisting of expenses incurred by a husband, wife, parent or guardian for medical, nursing, hospital or surgical services in connection with or on account of such injury;