Specific language in G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e), ¶6 precludes disqualification if the separation was caused by sexual, racial or other unreasonable harassment but only where the employer, its supervisory personnel or its agent knew or should have known about the harassment. See 430 CMR § 4.04(5)(b).

DUA has adopted regulations governing harassment in the workplace as it bears on UI eligibility, and claimants have been winning many more of these cases. The regulations define what constitutes racial, sexual or other unreasonable harassment. 430 CMR § 4.04(5)(a) and (b). Further, the regulations provide that in cases of alleged racial, sexual, or other unreasonable harassment, where the employer, its agents or other supervisory employees knew or should have known about the harassment, the employee need not take reasonable, or even, any, steps to resolve the situation before leaving. 430 CMR § 4.04(5)(c), ¶¶ 1 and 2. See Tri-County Youth Programs, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 405, 413, 765 N.E.2d 810, 817 (2002).

An employer is not deemed to have knowledge of harassment by a coworker or a customer, and an employee is required to report it unless he or she can prove that the employer knew or should have known of this harassment.

For harassment cases other than racial, sexual or other unreasonable harassment, the claimant must notify the employer, unless knowledge is imputed and may leave if the employer fails to take prompt and effective remedial action. 430 CMR § 4.04(5)(c), ¶ 3.