Lysak v. Seiler Corp.
415 Mass. 625, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 373, 614 N.E.2d 991 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not violate anti-discrimination laws by terminating an employee for making an unsolicited, false statement, even if that statement concerns a protected characteristic like pregnancy.
Facts:
- On February 20, 1987, Patricia Lysak interviewed for a marketing director position with William Zammer, the president of The Seiler Corporation.
- According to Zammer, during the interview, Lysak voluntarily stated that she was "not planning on having any more kids."
- At the time of the interview, Lysak knew she was pregnant.
- The Seiler Corporation hired Lysak, and she began work on March 23, 1987.
- On April 24, 1987, Lysak informed Zammer that she was pregnant.
- Zammer reacted with anger, stating the situation was "untenable" and that he felt "personally betrayed" because she had lied to him.
- The Seiler Corporation terminated Lysak's employment shortly after her disclosure.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Lysak (plaintiff) sued The Seiler Corporation (defendant) in a Massachusetts trial court for sex discrimination.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, The Seiler Corporation.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, Lysak, appealed the judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the case to itself for review on its own initiative.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the statutory prohibition against sex-based discrimination by terminating an employee for an unsolicited, false statement regarding her pregnancy or plans to have more children?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connor, J.
No, an employer does not violate the statutory prohibition against sex-based discrimination by terminating an employee for an unsolicited, false statement regarding her pregnancy. The court distinguished this case from Kraft v. Police Comm’r of Boston, where an employer was barred from firing an employee for giving false answers to an unlawful inquiry. The rule in Kraft is meant to discourage employers from making illegal inquiries. Here, the jury was entitled to believe the defendant's testimony that Lysak's statement was unsolicited and volunteered. Because the employer did not make an unlawful inquiry, it could lawfully terminate her employment based on the misrepresentation, which it viewed as a breach of trust, rather than for the pregnancy itself.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in employment discrimination law between a lie made in response to an employer's unlawful inquiry and an unsolicited lie volunteered by an employee. The ruling limits the protections afforded to employees who misrepresent information related to a protected class, suggesting that such dishonesty can serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. This creates a fine line that makes the credibility of the parties paramount in determining whether the employer's motive was permissible (dishonesty) or impermissible (discrimination). Consequently, it may encourage employers accused of discrimination to assert that any false statement about a protected characteristic was volunteered.
