MATA v. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Camille T. Mata, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in September 2016 with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) after she was denied admission to a regional planning doctoral program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (school).² After MCAD found a lack of probable cause to support her complaint, she challenged that disposition in the Superior Court. She now appeals from the judgment dismissing her case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), and a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). While Mata presents a host of claims on appeal related to the so-called “legal errors” committed by the judge, the appeal presents a single legal issue: whether Mata had the right to seek judicial review in the Superior Court. We conclude that she has no such right and affirm.

Background. Following Mata's submission of her complaint to the MCAD, an MCAD commissioner investigated the matter and dismissed it for a lack of probable cause. Mata, as permitted, requested a preliminary hearing in accordance with G. L. c. 151B, § 5. Following that hearing, MCAD affirmed the finding of the commissioner. MCAD's letter to Mata notifying her of that decision stated that the decision “represents a final action by the Commission and no further action regarding this complaint will be considered at [MCAD]. This final action of the Commission is not subject to Judicial Review [under] G. L. c. 30A.” Despite that notice, Mata nevertheless filed the underlying complaint, seeking judicial review of MCAD's disposition. MCAD moved to dismiss and the judge allowed the motion, concluding that a determination of no probable cause is not a final ruling of the MCAD and thus is not subject to appeal under G. L. c. 30A.

Discussion. We review Mata's claim de novo. See 311 W. Broadway LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal of Boston, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 68, 73 (2016). The sole legal question presented in this appeal has been answered and is controlled by Grandoit v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 603 (2019).³ In Grandoit, the plaintiff's five MCAD complaints were dismissed for a lack of probable cause after a preliminary hearing. Id. at 604. As here, the plaintiff attempted to challenge that disposition in the Superior Court. Id. The matter was appealed to this court and we concluded that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, see G. L. c. 30A, and the certiorari statute, see G. L. c. 249, § 4, to review MCAD's determinations of no probable cause. Grandoit, supra. We determined that similarly situated plaintiffs have an alternate remedy available under G. L. c. 151B, § 9, and as a matter of law cannot prove they “suffered a substantial injury or injustice from the commission's decision not to institute formal proceedings.” Grandoit, supra at 608. MCAD is not required to prosecute “each one of the many complaints that it receives.” Id. We reach the same result here.

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   In her complaint, Mata alleges that the school's rejection was based on her race and gender.

3.   Mata does not address Grandoit in her appeal and we see no reason to alter its holding.