Opinion
21-P-1154
01-24-2023
GERARD D. GRANDOIT v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION & another. [1]
Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Gerard D. Grandoit timely appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint. On appeal, he claims that the motion judge incorrectly relied on the "wrong" defenses; the judge misinterpreted his complaint for judicial review as one based on the final determination of his substantive claims, whereas it was limited to missteps in process and procedure; and the judge erred by failing to convert the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment. We affirm.
We note that in a subsequent action against the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Supreme Judicial Court, MCAD successfully sought sanctions against Grandoit due to the "serial, groundless litigation." As a sanction, the judge prohibited Grandoit from filing any action in law or equity against MCAD in any Massachusetts court without first submitting a verified complaint with the regional administrative justice of the Superior Court or the presiding justice of the court in which he seeks to file the action. Only upon a finding by either of those justices or their designee that the action is not frivolous shall MCAD be required to file a response.
Background.
On November 4, 2019, Grandoit filed a complaint at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), alleging that the American Health & Life Insurance Company (insurance company) violated the public accommodations law, G. L. c. 272, § 98, by refusing to reinstate certain life insurance policies. An MCAD investigator concluded the claims were untimely and recommended a finding of lack of jurisdiction.The recommendation was adopted, resulting in the dismissal of Grandoit's complaint based on MCAD's inability "to conclude that the information obtained establish[ed] a violation of the statutes." Following Grandoit's exercise of his right to appeal that determination within MCAD, the case proceeded to a preliminary hearing before an investigating commissioner. See G. L. c. 151B, § 5. The commissioner subsequently affirmed the dismissal, see 804 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.08(4) (b) (6) (a) (2020), notifying Grandoit that under 804 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.08(4)(b)(3) (2020), "[f]urther administrative or judicial review [of that decision] [wa]s unavailable."
The investigator also determined that Grandoit failed to state a discrimination claim.
Notwithstanding that express notice, Grandoit filed in the Superior Court this "complaint for judicial review (Administrative Agency Proceedings)" against MCAD and the insurance company. The complaint sought "judicial review pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, [§] 14, G. L. c. 249, [§] 4, or similar statute." Relying on principles discussed in Grandoit v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 95 Mass.App.Ct. 603, 604-608 (2019), a judge allowed the defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint. This appeal ensued.
Discussion.
The judge did not err or abuse his discretion by dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. As Grandoit has repeatedly been informed, MCAD's procedural regulations and relevant statutes do not provide a right to judicial review of MCAD's decision in this context under either G. L. c. 30A or G. L. c. 249, § 4. See Grandoit, 95 Mass.App.Ct. at 606-609, and cases cited. See also Grandoit v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 98 Mass.App.Ct. 1114 (2020); Grandoit v. Milton Hous. Auth., 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1126 (2020) .
The distinction drawn by Grandoit between a "substantive" appeal and one based on procedure is unavailing. Not only does the Superior Court lack jurisdiction over the merits of MCAD's decision, but it also lacks jurisdiction to determine whether MCAD's decision was made upon unlawful procedure. See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (d). The cases relied upon by Grandoit either do not support, or they actually undermine, his arguments. See, e.g., Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., Inc., 454 Mass. 390, 400 (2009); Zannerini v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 1119 (2009).
The judge was not required to convert the insurance company's motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction into one for summary judgment. See Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Ass'n, 421 Mass. 106, 108-109 (1995). Even if the judge should have converted MCAD's motion to dismiss, which was based on both lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the result would have been the same, and thus Grandoit suffered no prejudice.
Grandoit's request for "fees and costs" is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.