G.L. c. 149, § 185; Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469 (1992)
Whistleblower and retaliatory discharge in Massachusetts — the statute covers public employees only
A claim in Massachusetts trial courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
The Massachusetts Whistleblower Act is narrower than its name, and the limit is in the definitions.
Section 185(a)(2) defines "employer" as "the commonwealth, and its agencies or political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof." A later amendment added gas and electric public utility employers.
Private-sector employees are not covered. A worker at a private company who reports illegality and is fired has to look elsewhere — to the common-law public policy exception, or to the retaliation provision inside whichever statute their complaint concerned.
What the claim is
You reported something illegal or dangerous, or refused to take part in it, and your employer punished you for it.
The statutory claim — § 185, for public employees
What is protected. Section 185(b) prohibits retaliatory action because the employee:
- discloses, or threatens to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes violates a law, rule or regulation, or poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment;
- provides information to or testifies before a public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into such an activity; or
- objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice.
"Retaliatory action" is defined as "the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment."
The notice requirement. This is the trap. Before disclosing to a public body, the employee must bring the activity to a supervisor's attention by written notice and give the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct it. An employee who goes straight to the agency or the press without that step is generally unprotected.
The exceptions to the notice requirement cover the cases where notice would be pointless or dangerous — where the employee reasonably fears physical harm, where the situation is an emergency, where the employee reasonably believes the activity is already known to a supervisor, or where the employee reasonably fears the evidence would be destroyed or concealed.
Two years to sue, under § 185's own limitations provision — shorter than the ordinary three-year tort period and shorter than the 300 days plus three years of a c. 151B claim.
The election of remedies. Section 185 requires an employee who brings the statutory claim to waive other rights and remedies arising from the same retaliatory action. Choosing the statute can mean giving up parallel claims, which is a decision to make deliberately rather than by default.
What it pays. Section 185(d) allows a court to order reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority and benefits, compensation for lost wages and benefits, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Civil fines are available against the employer.
Notice posting. Section 185(g) requires employers to post notice of these protections, and the designation of the supervisor to whom disclosures should be made comes from that notice.
The private-sector employee — the public policy exception
Massachusetts is an at-will state, and the common-law exception is deliberately narrow.
An at-will employee may not be discharged for a reason that violates a clearly established public policy. Massachusetts has recognised the exception in four situations:
- asserting a legal right — filing a workers' compensation claim, for instance;
- doing what the law requires — serving on a jury, testifying truthfully;
- refusing to do what the law forbids — refusing to commit perjury or to violate a statute; and
- cooperating with a law enforcement investigation.
Internal complaints about ordinary wrongdoing are usually not enough. Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469 (1992), held that an employee fired after making internal complaints about patient care was not protected, because internal reporting of a matter of internal policy — however conscientious — does not amount to conduct the public policy exception covers.
That decision defines the boundary. Reporting to a public authority, refusing to break the law, or asserting a statutory right is protected. Being a diligent internal critic is not.
Three years to sue, under G.L. c. 260, § 2A.
Damages are contract-measured in most formulations — lost wages and benefits — with emotional distress damages available in some circumstances, and no fee award.
The statute-specific retaliation provisions
For a private-sector employee, these are usually stronger than the public policy claim, and each has its own deadline and remedies:
- Wage Act retaliation — G.L. c. 149 § 148A, with § 150's mandatory treble damages and fees;
- Chapter 151B retaliation for opposing discrimination — 300-day MCAD charge, mandatory fees, no damages cap;
- Workers' compensation retaliation, under G.L. c. 152 § 75B;
- Health care whistleblower protection, under G.L. c. 149 § 187, for nurses and other health care providers who report unsafe conditions;
- The Massachusetts False Claims Act, G.L. c. 12 §§ 5A–5O, which protects an employee who reports fraud on the Commonwealth and allows a qui tam action with a share of the recovery.
The practical advice follows from the list: identify the subject matter of the complaint, and the statute governing that subject usually contains the retaliation remedy.
How long you have to file
Two years for a § 185 claim.
Three years for a common-law public policy claim.
300 days to the MCAD for a c. 151B retaliation claim, then suit within three years.
Three years for a Wage Act retaliation claim, tolled during the Attorney General's process.
What has to happen before you file
The § 185 written notice to a supervisor, with a reasonable opportunity to correct, unless an exception applies.
An MCAD charge, for a c. 151B retaliation claim.
An Attorney General complaint, for a Wage Act retaliation claim.
Which court
Superior Court for a § 185 claim. District Court or the Boston Municipal Court within the $50,000 threshold for the others, and Superior Court above it.
Common defenses
- The employer is not a public employer — which defeats the § 185 claim outright for a private-sector plaintiff.
- No written notice to a supervisor before the public disclosure.
- No clearly established public policy, on the common-law claim — the Wright defence.
- A legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action.
- The belief was not reasonable.
- Election of remedies, under § 185.
- Limitations — two years is short.
What people get wrong
The Whistleblower Act does not cover private employees. Its definition of "employer" is the Commonwealth and its subdivisions, plus gas and electric utilities.
You have to tell a supervisor first. Written notice, with a chance to fix it, unless an exception applies.
Two years, not three. Section 185 has its own shorter period.
Internal complaints are usually not protected at common law. Wright draws that line.
The subject-matter statute is often the better claim. Wage Act retaliation trebles damages and shifts fees; the public policy claim does neither.
Choosing § 185 may cost you other claims, because of the election of remedies provision.
Where it came from
The at-will rule holds that an employer may discharge an employee for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. The public policy exception is the courts' answer to the cases where that rule would make the law self-defeating — an employee who cannot refuse to commit a crime without losing their job is an employee the law has conscripted.
Massachusetts kept the exception narrow on purpose. Wright is the clearest statement of why: a broad exception covering anyone fired after raising a concern would convert at-will employment into something else entirely, and the courts declined to do by common law what the Legislature had not done by statute.
The Legislature then acted, and acted narrowly too. Section 185 protects public employees, where the argument for protection is strongest — a government employee who sees illegality has a duty to the public that no private employment relationship creates, and the employer they are reporting is the public itself.
For everyone else the Legislature has proceeded subject by subject, attaching a retaliation provision to each statute it cared about: wages, discrimination, workers' compensation, health care, false claims. That is why there is no general private-sector whistleblower statute in Massachusetts and why the first question in any such case is what the employee was complaining about.
Common questions
Does the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act protect private employees?
No. Section 185 defines "employer" as the Commonwealth and its agencies and political subdivisions, with gas and electric public utility employers added later.
What do I have to do before reporting to a government agency?
Give written notice to a supervisor and a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem — unless you reasonably fear physical harm, the situation is an emergency, a supervisor already knows, or you reasonably fear evidence will be destroyed.
How long do I have to sue?
Two years under § 185. Three years for a common-law public policy claim. Different deadlines apply to the statute-specific retaliation provisions.
I was fired for complaining internally at a private company. Do I have a claim?
Usually not under the public policy exception — Wright holds internal complaints about internal matters are not protected. Look at whether a specific statute covering the subject has its own retaliation provision.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
Yes under § 185 and under the Wage Act and c. 151B retaliation provisions. Not on the common-law public policy claim.
Does bringing the statutory claim affect my other claims?
Yes. Section 185 contains an election of remedies provision requiring a waiver of other rights and remedies arising from the same retaliatory action.