Code:
{{USA Case Law |Court=1st Circuit |Docket No.=94-1950 |Case name=Clarke v. Kentucky Fried |Original Document=http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1950.01A }}
July 5, 1995UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-1950
KARIN CLARKE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
ERRATA SHEET
Theopinion ofthisCourt issuedonJune 14,1995,is
amended as follows:
Cover sheet, underlisting ofcounsel, add: NanMyerson
Evans, Bon Tempo & Evans and David A. Robinson on brief of amicus
curiae National Employment Lawyers Association.
[Appendix not attached.Please contact Clerk's Office
for opinion with appendix.]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-1950
KARIN CLARKE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
Kevin G. Powers, with whom Robert S. Mantell and LawOffice of Kevin G. Powers were on brief for appellant. Jeffrey G.Huvelle, withwhom MelissaCole,Covington&Burling,TerryPhilipSegal,BrendaR.Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee.
Nan Myerson Evans,Bon Tempo &Evans and DavidA.
Robinson on briefof amicuscuriae NationalEmploymentLawyers Association.
June 14, 1995
CYR,Circuit Judge. PlaintiffKarin Clarkeappeals CYR,Circuit Judge.
from adistrict court judgment dismissingher sexual harassment
claimagainst herformeremployer, KentuckyFried Chickenof
California,Inc. ("KFC"), forfailure to exhaust administrative
remedies,and dismissingher relatedstate-law tortclaims on
preemption grounds.We affirm the judgment.
I I
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
While employed by defendantKFC at a fast-food restau-
rantinSaugus,Massachusetts, Clarkewassexually harassed,
physically assaulted,and subjectedto attempted rapeby other
KFC employees. Clarke quither job andinitiated thepresent
lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court,alleging sexual harass-
ment,negligent and recklessinfliction ofemotional distress,
and negligent hiring, retention and supervision.
After removing the caseto federal district court, see
28 U.S.C.1441, 1446; see also id. 1332 (diversity jurisdic-
tion), KFC filed a motion to dismiss all claims, see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6),contending thatthe sexual harassmentclaim under
Mass.Gen. L.Ann. ch.214,1C, wasbarred forfailure to
exhaustmandatory administrativeremedies beforethe Massachu-
setts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"), see Mass.Gen.
L.ch. 151B,5 (prescribingsix-month limitationperiod for
MCAD claims),9 (making section 5procedure "exclusive"), and
that Clarke'scommonlawtortclaims werepreemptedbythe
Massachusetts Workers'Compensation Act,see Mass. Gen.L. ch.
2
152, 1 et seq. (Supp. 1994).The motion to dismiss was granted
in its entirety.Clarke v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California,
Inc., No. 94-11101-EFH (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 1994).1
II II
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
A. Sexual Harassment A. Sexual Harassment
Clarkefirst contends thatthe districtcourt should
nothavedismissed hersexualharassmentclaim, becausethe
"jurisdictional" clauseinMass. Gen.L.Ann. ch.214,1C
(1986) ("Thesuperior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to
enforcethisrightand toawarddamages.")evinces aclear
legislative intent to except such claims from compliance with the
otherwise mandatory MCAD exhaustion requirementimposed on other
employment-based discrimination claimsunder Massachusettslaw.
In order to place her contention in context, we examine pertinent
case law and statutes, see infra APPENDIX at pp. (i)-(iii). (1st Cir. 1990).
7
