E-Alerts

Massachusetts SJC: Individuals May Be Held Liable For Sexual Harassment In Schools

Massachusetts’s highest court recently held that students who are sexually harassed in educational settings can sue individual perpetrators. The Supreme Judicial Court’s (“SJC”) decision in Sabatini v. Knouse reversed the trial court and the intermediate appellate court, which had both held that such claims could only be brought against institutions—as opposed to individuals.

While Sabatini arose in the post-secondary context, the SJC’s ruling appears to apply broadly to public and non-public educational institutions in the Commonwealth.

Background

In 2020, the director of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT (“Whitehead”) commissioned a diversity study. The study unearthed allegations of a “sexualized” and “retaliatory” environment. In particular, the study brought to light concerns about a past sexual relationship between research fellow Kristin Knouse and David Sabatini, who was the laboratory director at Whitehead and a prominent MIT professor.

Knouse and Sabatini had met when Knouse was a graduate student, approximately eight years previously. When Knouse was a student, Sabatini served as one of her instructors and a member of her dissertation committee. Later, when Knouse was a fellow at Whitehead, Sabatini worked in the laboratory next to hers and was both a mentor and a reviewer of her work. Their sexual relationship began in 2018 when Knouse was a fellow. Knouse reported that after that relationship ended in 2019, Sabatini continued to make sexualized comments to her.

In response to these concerns, Whitehead engaged an independent legal team to investigate. Among other things, the investigators determined that Sabatini had “engaged in and otherwise tolerated sexist and sexualized work discussions” in his laboratory, and that engaging in such discussions was “an implicit part of succeeding in” Sabatini’s laboratory. The investigators concluded that Sabatini had violated a number of Whitehead policies, including its policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Sabatini resigned from his position at Whitehead, while MIT announced that it was placing Sabatini on leave to conduct its own investigation.

Court Proceedings

While MIT’s investigation was still ongoing, Sabatini sued Whitehead, its director, and Knouse, asserting various claims, including defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, Knouse filed counterclaims, including a claim under M.G.L. c. 214, § 1C, which provides that “[a] person shall have the right to be free from sexual harassment.”

The trial court allowed Sabatini’s motion to dismiss, ruling that c. 214, § 1C does not permit claims against individuals. The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the “substantive law regarding sexual harassment in the academic context is set forth in M.G.L. c. 151C, § 2(g),” which, the Appeals Court reasoned, applies only to educational institutions, and not to individual perpetrators of harassment within those institutions.

Knouse appealed to the SJC on the question of whether M.G.L. c. 214, § 1C allows claims against individuals for sexual harassment that occurs in educational contexts.

SJC’s Decision

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court overruled the lower courts, permitting Knouse’s sexual harassment claim against Sabatini to move forward. The SJC rejected the argument that, by incorporating the definition of “sexual harassment” in M.G.L. c. 151C, which addresses unfair educational practices by educational institutions, c. 214, § 1C limits the remedies available to students to claims against such institutions.

In support of its finding, the Court reasoned:

• M.G.L. c. 214, § 1C creates a broad cause of action through which individuals can enforce their right to be free from sexual harassment, including in the educational context, and nothing in the plain language of that statute shields individual harassers from liability.

• Reading such a limitation into c. 214, § 1C would “run counter to the statute’s broad remedial purpose.”

• The language of M.G.L. c. 214, § 1C is similar to that of the Commonwealth’s right-of-privacy statute, M.G.L. c. 214, § 1B, under which courts have permitted claims against both individuals and institutions.

The SJC thus remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s holding.

Analysis And Recommendations

Given the power imbalance inherent in the student-teacher relationship, as well as the level of trust invested in educational professionals, sexual harassment directed at students by educators can have troubling and lasting effects. The SJC’s Sabatini decision thus represents a win for victims of sexual harassment in Massachusetts schools by providing an avenue to sue their harassers directly.

Of course, the decision does nothing to limit the ability of victims to pursue legal claims against educational institutions related to harassment perpetrated by their employees. A lawsuit including claims against both an educational institution and an individual employee may raise tricky strategic issues for the school involved.

The Sabatini case also serves as another reminder to schools of the importance of having a comprehensive framework for preventing, reporting, and responding to sexual harassment, particularly as it relates to students. Schools should regularly review and update relevant policies and practices on this topic, including those related to employee training, student and family education, investigations, and mandated reporting.

* * *

If you have questions about the SJC’s Sabatini decision, please feel free to reach out to one of our experienced education attorneys.