Articles Posted in Employment Law Claims

by

Overview: In Diaz v. Ace Metal Finishing Inc., the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent industrial company and dismissed the complaint alleging termination of employment based on disability. The Complainant, who went out on a six-month medical leave when his chronic leg condition worsened, was laid off upon returning to work. The Respondent cited a decline in revenue, changes in the business model, and an ongoing conversion to a more complex process as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the Complainant’s termination.

The hearing officer concluded that it was likely the Respondent assumed that the Complainant was not returning and “made the determination to lay him off for legitimate reasons relating to its finances and change in business model” after being caught off-guard by the Complainant’s return. Even though the decision to lay off the Complainant appeared to have been precipitated by his seeking to return to work, the Complainant failed to establish the layoff was motivated by discriminatory animus.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Pavoni v. Wheely Funn Inc., the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation against a roller skating rink owner. The Complainant did establish a prima facie case based on the temporal proximity between her rejection of the business owner’s advances and her termination, which were less than four apart. The Respondent’s staff provided credible testimony, however, that the Complainant had chronic problems with tardiness, frequent breaks, and inattentiveness.

The hearing officer further found that the owner did not “behave like a scorned suitor” after finding out that the Complainant did not reciprocate his feelings, but instead “assured her that her rejection of a personal relationship would not affect her job, turned his attention to dating other women, and promptly met his current wife.” Failure to meet job expectations was what ultimately led to the Complainant’s termination.

Continue Reading →

by

Sexual harassment claims often involve salacious allegations that can form the basis of a punitive damages award, the purpose of which is not to compensate the victim but to punish the wrongdoer and thus deter similar misconduct in the future. Fox’s payment to Gretchen Carlson of reportedly $20 million to settle sexual harassment allegations against its ousted founder, Roger Ailes, recently brought workplace sexual harassment into the limelight. According to her complaint, among other incidents, Ailes allegedly told Carlson: “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better … sometimes problems are easier to solve [that way].” The size of the settlement suggests that Fox may have been concerned about a jury awarding Carlson significant punitive damages.

More recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Gyulakian v. Lexus of Watertown had the opportunity to clarify in what circumstances a jury may award punitive damages in sexual harassment cases under the Fair Employment Practices Act, namely M.G.L. c. 151B, §9. There, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff of $40,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. In response to the defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 50, the trial judge wiped out the jury’s punitive damages award and upheld the compensatory award. Both parties appealed and the SJC granted direct appellate review.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Santos v. X-Treme Silkscreen & Design, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages for disability discrimination. The MCAD also amended the complaint to add as an individual the sole owner of the Respondent silk screening and embroidery company. Evidence established that the Complainant—who suffered from morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and sleep apnea—was terminated on the first workday after he requested a leave of absence to undergo gastric bypass surgery.

Even though the Complainant had displayed a decline in his work performance, the hearing officer concluded that “his request for medical leave was the but-for cause of his termination.” This conclusion was motivated in part by the temporal proximity of the two events. The hearing officer declined to award back pay, however, finding that the Complainant was not forthcoming about his interim earnings and went more than a year without making a good faith effort to seek new work.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Gutierrez-Dupuis v. Gabriel Care, LLC, the MCAD found in favor of Complainant Dupuis on her retaliation claim, but it found against Complainant Gutierrez on her claims of retaliation and discrimination based on national origin and race. There was no credible evidence to support claims that Gutierrez was told not to speak Spanish to clients or that her supervisor mocked Gutierrez’s accent. The record also made it clear that Gutierrez was terminated for taking steps to open a competing business and not for complaining about discrimination.

As for Complainant Dupuis, however, the hearing officer arrived at the “inescapable conclusion” that the primary reason she was terminated was because she said she would serve as a supporting witness if Gutierrez filed a discrimination claim. The hearing officer reasoned that Dupuis was “fired for standing up in support of her good faith, if misguided, belief that fellow employee Gutierrez was the victim of discrimination.” She was awarded back pay and emotional distress damages.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Patterson v. Ahold USA, Inc., the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded back pay, front pay, and emotional distress damages for race-based discrimination. The parent company of Stop & Shop terminated the Complainant’s position in the corporate headquarters due to a reorganization and filled other open positions with white employees while passing over the Complainant, who was African-American.

Though the Respondent purported to follow a legitimate process for reorganization, the hearing officer found it quite clear from the evidence that the Respondent exercised significant discretion in selecting employees to be laid off and preserved positions for favored employees. Although there was little evidence in the record showing blatant or conscious race-based bias, that the bias was unconscious did not excuse it. The Complainant received several years of lost wages, front pay up until her 66th birthday, and damages for emotional distress.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Harper v. Z2A Enterprises, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, awarding emotional distress damages and three months of back pay in a sexual harassment claim against the operator of the Half Time Sports Bar and Grill. The Respondents failed to appear at the hearing, and an Order of Entry of Default was noted on the record.

The Complainant put forth unrebutted evidence establishing that she was sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment by the conduct of her immediate supervisor. The “extremely abusive and degrading behavior” included physical assaults, verbal abuse, sexual taunts, and sexually suggestive comments in the presence of customers and subordinates. The hearing officer found that the Complainant was constructively discharged because she legitimately believed that there was no recourse but to quit.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Tinker v. Securitas Security Services and Hussain, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages for discrimination based on sex/gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The Complainant, who previously identified as a woman and a lesbian, notified the Respondent that he was transgender and was transitioning to a man. There was credible testimony that the Complainant’s direct supervisor persisted in making very offensive comments, first about the Complainant’s female gender and sexual orientation and then later about his about his transgender identity.

The hearing officer concluded that Securitas did not take seriously any of the concerns that the Complainant raised with managers. Further, denials about being on notice of the conduct were not credible because the offender was a supervisor, and an employer “is vicariously liable for unlawful harassment committed by as supervisor upon whom it confers authority.” The offending supervisor was also individually liable as the perpetrator of the harassment.

Continue Reading →

by

Unequal pay between men and women is well-documented. From sports to the entertainment industry to medicine, the pay gap spans numerous professions. Studies also reveal that pay in traditionally male-dominated occupations can become depressed when women enter certain professions in large numbers. Overall, research by the American Association of University Women shows that women in the United States are paid about 20% less than their male counterparts. The wage disparity in Massachusetts is only slightly better with female employees receiving approximately 82% of the compensation of their male colleagues.

Massachusetts was the first state in the country to pass legislation, as codified under M.G.L. c. 149, §105A, mandating equal pay among men and women for “work of comparable character or work on comparable operations.” Since then, the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA) has undergone several revisions and judicial interpretation. Prior to the most recent revision signed into law on August 1, 2016, and as testimony by Attorney General Maura Healey in support of its passage shows, MEPA has long been criticized as a statute without teeth.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Verne v. Pelican Products, the MCAD found for the Respondent manufacturer and dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination based on national origin. The Complainant alleged that she was treated differently from non-Puerto Rican employees when she received a “final” warning for sending person emails at work and that she was subjected to hostile racial comments. Her separate complaint for retaliation had previously been dismissed by the MCAD because it was untimely.

Credible evidence established that, as soon as the Respondent’s HR Director became aware that another employee used an offensive epithet, she conducted an immediate investigation and terminated the offender the same day. The Respondent similarly took remedial action in the form of written discipline after another employee uttered a taunt about the Complainant. The hearing officer concluded that there were “some minor, albeit unpleasant, interactions in the workplace which the employer took aggressive steps to monitor and control,” but it was not a hostile work environment. The Complainant similarly could not establish a case for disparate treatment because her conduct in sending inappropriate emails was far worse than that of other employees who had received less discipline.

Continue Reading →