Elizabeth A. Rodgers & Marjorie Heins for the plaintiff.
Joseph F. Ryan for the defendant.
In this case we are asked to decide whether the plaintiff, who failed to follow the procedures set forth in G. L. c. 151B, may nevertheless bring an action against his employer for wrongful termination of employment on grounds of age discrimination. We adopt both the analysis and conclusion of the opinion of the Appeals Court, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 511 (1985), and hold that the plaintiff may not bypass the provisions of the statute.
We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the action. [Note 1]
[Note 1] MR. JUSTICE NOLAN took no part in this court's decision.
Tina S. Page for the defendant.
Gary B. Liquori for the plaintiffs.
This case, like Billings v. Wilson, ante 614 (1986), raises the issue whether G. L. c. 93A, Section 2 (1984 ed.), applies to the rental of a dwelling unit in an owner-occupied two-family house, where it is shown that the landlords own no other rental real property. A judge of the Housing Court in Hampden County initially granted judgment for the defendant tenant on her counterclaim based on c. 93A, Section 2. Subsequently, on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment, the judge ruled that c. 93A, Section 2, is not
applicable and, for the reasons we have stated in Billings, supra, we conclude that this ruling was not erroneous. The allowance of the plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment as to the counterclaim involving c. 93A is affirmed.