Local Control: Massachusetts Law Provides Stronger Protection Against Sexual Harassment than Federal Law

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a federal district court applying Massachusetts law that demonstrates the power of tough state antidiscrimination laws. Grossman describes the facts of the case and the differences between Massachusetts and federal law and explains why robust state laws have the power to hold institutions liable when they delegate authority to those who abuse it.

Read More

Robertson v. State

Docket: 19S-PL-432

Opinion Date: March 30, 2020

Judge: Steven H. David

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court denying a county bookkeeper's motion to dismiss the claims brought against it by the Indiana Attorney General for misappropriation of public funds and seeking relief under the Crime Victims Relief Act (CVRA), holding that the CVRA claim was untimely. At issue on appeal was what the applicable statutes of limitations were for the claims at issue. The Supreme Court held (1) as for the claims to recover public funds pursuant to Ind. Code 5-11-5-1(a), the limitations period begins to run after the Office of the Indian Attorney General receives a final, verified report from the State Board of Accounts; and (2) the claims pursuant to the CVRA are governed by the discovery rule. Therefore, the Court held the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss the claims for misappropriation of public funds but erred in denying the motion to dismiss as to the CVRA claim.