Proposed MCAD Regulation Changes Spark Concerns Over Access to Discrimination Claims
Members of the employment bar and civil rights leaders are urging the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) to reconsider significant proposed revisions to its procedural regulations, 801 CMR 1.00. Critics argue the changes could hinder access to discrimination claims, particularly for those representing themselves.
Background on the Proposed Revisions
Draft regulations, published on December 3, 2025, and subject to a public comment period that closed January 30, 2026 (later extended to March 31, 2026), aim to modernize MCAD’s case management system. MCAD press secretary Justine LaVoye explained the revisions are part of an effort to address longstanding criticism regarding lengthy investigations, a growing backlog, and inefficient case processing.
Key Concerns: Online Portal and Complaint Filing
A central component of the proposed changes is a new online portal for filing complaints. While MCAD states this will provide “unprecedented access” to the agency, critics worry about the impact on pro se (self-represented) complainants. Historically, these individuals have benefited from filing complaints by mail or in person at MCAD offices in Boston, Springfield, or Worcester.
The proposed regulations discourage mailed complaints, suggesting they may cause delays. Robert S. Mantell, an employment attorney, argues this language feels like a threat and could deter individuals from filing claims. Currently, walk-in intakes account for 36% of new complaints, virtual intakes 26%, and mail submissions 7% [1].
Critics also express concern that eliminating a thorough walk-in intake process will disproportionately affect underserved populations, including those with limited English proficiency or technological skills.
Expanded Grounds for Complaint Dismissal
Beyond the online portal, concerns center on expanded grounds for MCAD to dismiss complaints without full investigation. Proposed criteria include allegations deemed “vague,” allegations of harm considered “de minimis, moot or mitigated,” a “tenuous nexus” between protected class and discriminatory conduct, or if the “public interest requires focusing Commission resources on complaints with greater impact.”
Anne L. Josephson, author of a memorandum submitted on behalf of a coalition including GLAD Law, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Disability Law Center, argues these criteria are inappropriate. Lawyers for Civil Rights assert that dismissing complaints on these grounds would contradict the authorizing statute, citing the 1988 Supreme Judicial Court decision Electronics Corp. Of America v. Commr. Of Revenue. They argue that MCAD lacks the authority to create a “de minimis” exception to discrimination law, as Chapter 151B does not permit discrimination “just a little.”
Changes to Discovery and Appeal Processes
The proposed regulations also eliminate the right to discovery by sua sponte order of the investigating commissioner or upon motion by a party, a tool previously available at the Commission’s discretion. The right to an in-person hearing before a commissioner when appealing a lack-of-probable-cause determination would be replaced with exclusively written appeals.
MCAD’s Response
MCAD acknowledges receiving both positive and negative feedback on the draft regulations. Justine LaVoye stated the agency is confident that the modernization effort will shorten investigations, improve quality, and enhance access to services. She emphasized that MCAD staff will “assist” walk-ins with using the online portal and that the “more robust” preliminary investigation process will allow for a more thorough review of complaints.
Legislative Context and Funding
Josephson noted that MCAD faces a “very robust enforcement mandate” while being chronically underfunded, a situation potentially exacerbated by changes to operate-share agreements with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). MCAD’s backlog of non-housing investigations increased by 26.53% year-over-year [1].
Critics suggest that adequate funding, rather than procedural changes, is the key to addressing the backlog and fulfilling MCAD’s mission.