## Facts

- Patricia Lysak was hired by The Seiler Corporation as marketing director after a February 20, 1987 interview and began work March 23, 1987.
- Lysak was pregnant at the time of the interview and knew it; she testified pregnancy and childbearing plans were not discussed.
- Seiler’s president, William Zammer, testified Lysak volunteered that her husband stayed home with their two children and that she was not planning to have more children.
- On April 24, 1987, Lysak informed Zammer she was pregnant; she testified he reacted angrily, called the situation “untenable,” said she could not continue in the position, and claimed he felt “personally betrayed.”
- The following week, Lysak proposed converting her status to independent contractor; the parties did so until mid-July 1987.
- Seiler’s defense was that any adverse action was based on loss of trust from an unsolicited misrepresentation about childbearing plans, not on pregnancy itself.

## Issues

1. Whether Lysak was entitled to a directed verdict on her claim of pregnancy discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
2. Whether the trial judge erred by refusing Lysak’s requested instruction that termination based on a misrepresentation concerning pregnancy/childbearing was unlawful.
3. Whether excluding Lysak’s testimony about emotional distress was error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the judgment for Seiler.
- The court held a directed verdict for the plaintiff was not warranted because the case turned on contested oral testimony and credibility determinations for the jury.
- The court upheld refusal of the requested instruction because ch. 151B does not bar an employer from acting on an employee’s unsolicited misrepresentation, even if it concerns pregnancy, when the action is based on the misrepresentation rather than the protected trait.
- Any error in excluding emotional-distress testimony was harmless because the defense verdict on liability meant the jury never reached damages.

## Legal Principles

- Pregnancy discrimination constitutes sex discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B.
- A plaintiff bearing the burden of proof is generally not entitled to a directed verdict where material facts depend on disputed oral testimony and credibility assessments.
- Chapter 151B prohibits adverse action taken because of a protected characteristic, but it does not forbid adverse action taken because of an employee’s unsolicited misrepresentation, even when the subject of the misrepresentation involves a protected characteristic.
- Exclusion of evidence relevant only to damages is not prejudicial when the defendant prevails on liability and the jury does not reach damages.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict for the employer, concluding that the discrimination claim properly went to the jury on disputed credibility and that ch. 151B permits an employer to act on an employee’s unsolicited misrepresentation about childbearing plans when the employer’s reason is the misrepresentation itself rather than pregnancy.


Lysak v. Seiler Corp., 415 Mass. 625 (1993)