Opinion
No. 16–P–24.
12-23-2016
Meena TEJWANI v. SLEEPYS the MATTRESS PROFESSIONALS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Plaintiff Meena Tejwani appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing her employment discrimination claim. The plaintiff's arguments on appeal do not constitute reasoned legal arguments supported by citations to the record and to relevant legal authorities. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975); Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 81, 85–86 (1995). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the appeal based on the record before us. We affirm.
Discussion. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that sexual harassment, discrimination, and other misconduct by her supervisors in the workplace resulted in less desirable conditions of employment and ultimately led to her termination. We assume for the purposes of this appeal that these allegations are true. Nonetheless, a judge of the Superior Court dismissed her complaint for failure to first seek administrative remedies. We discern no error.
Before an employee of an employer with six or more employees may sue her employer for workplace discrimination or sexual harassment, she must file a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). See Green v. Wyman–Gordon Co., 422 Mass. 551, 554–558 (1996) ; Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585, 599–600 (2009) ; G.L. c. 151B, § 5. "Resort to the courts is not available for a complaint of discrimination within the jurisdiction of the MCAD unless the person claiming to have been the object of unlawful discrimination first makes a timely complaint to that agency." Cherella v. Phoenix Technologies Ltd., 32 Mass.App.Ct. 919, 919 (1992). Because the plaintiff failed to take this mandatory first step, the judge properly dismissed her complaint.
The plaintiff claims in her brief that she failed to file a complaint with MCAD based on erroneous advice she received when she called MCAD, and that the judge was biased against her. Factual claims such as these cannot be made for the first time in an appeal; we are confined to the record of the proceedings in the trial court. See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006), quoting from Century Fire & Marine Ins. Corp. v. Bank of New England–Bristol County, N.A., 405 Mass. 420, 421 n. 2 (1989) ("An issue not raised or argued below may not be argued for the first time on appeal"); Adoption of Darla, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 519, 522 (2002) (claim of trial judge's bias forfeited if not timely raised with the judge). Based on the record before us, we see no basis to disturb the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.