On Sept. 22, 2025, Judge Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts dismissed all claims against Harvard College arising from a former faculty member's suit against the university.
Plaintiff James Wines kept an appointment as an Instructor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School for almost 30 years while also employed at Mass General Brigham, a Harvard-affiliated hospital. He maintained these positions at the same time, and his appointment at Harvard was conditioned upon his employment at Mass General Brigham—without his hospital appointment, the employee handbook clarified his university appointment would be terminated.
When Mass General Brigham instituted a mandatory vaccine policy for all of its employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, Wines refused to comply, and was subsequently terminated from his position at the hospital. As was required according to the Harvard employee handbook, Harvard then terminated Wines from his university position.
Wines sued the university under a list of theories, including but not limited to, breach of contract, constitutional claims, civil conspiracy, and unfair business practices under Chapter 93A. The Chapter 93A claim, specifically, was dismissed because Wines did not sufficiently allege that Harvard was “engaging in trade or commerce,” as required by the statute, when it acted on its employment handbook's policies.
In its ruling, the District Court relied on Massachusetts cases that hold for two major propositions. The first is that charitable institutions, such as Harvard, are not engaged in trade or commerce when they “undertake[] activities in furtherance of its core mission.” Linkage Corp. v. Trs. of Bos. Univ., 679 N.E.2d 191, 209 (Mass. 1997). Second, “employment agreements between an employee and the organization of which he is a member do not constitute ‘trade' or ‘commerce.'” Manning v. Zuckerman, 444 N.E.2d 1262, 1265 (Mass. 1983). The District Court felt that case law thus definitively answered the question of Chapter 93A liability in the negative because Harvard was executing an employment agreement in furtherance of its core mission as a non-profit university. Wines himself alleged that the sole reason Harvard terminated him was because of his termination at Mass General Brigham, and thus, no Chapter 93A claim could continue.
Generally, non-profits and charitable institutions' acts and practices are immune from the reach of Chapter 93A if motivated by their own policies and mission. However, if they act on motivations that exceed those policies and mission, they may be veering into Chapter 93A territory and straying from the safe haven of acting “in furtherance of its core mission.”
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
