Articles Posted in Race Discrimination

by

Overview: In Cromartie v. West River Pharmacy & Blitchington, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent pharmacy and one of its supervisors, dismissing the complaint. The Complainant, a black woman working as a medical records technician, alleged that she had been discriminated against because of her race and color and retaliated against for filing an internal complaint. Specifically, the Complainant alleged she was subjected to disparate treatment that included the assignment of more work than coworkers and disparaging treatment by supervisors.

The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not show that she was adequately performing her job. There was considerable evidence establishing that the Complainant made frequent errors that could have placed patients in danger. Furthermore, the Complainant did not establish that similarly situated coworkers not in her protected class were treated differently. There was credible evidence that white, Asian, and Latino employees had been disciplined and/or terminated for similar mistakes.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Rodriguez v. UPS, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint alleging discrimination based on race and national origin as well as retaliation. The Complainant, a driver and dock worker, claimed that he was subjected to harassing behavior by coworkers, including name-calling and criticism. Although the claims would have been enough to establish a prima facie case if proven, the hearing officer determined that the Complainant was not a credible witness and therefore did not establish a claim.

The hearing officer noted that the Complainant had charged a coworker at a prior company with similar discrimination and lied under oath when he said that he did not file a similar lawsuit against that employer. Furthermore, witnesses contradicted much of the Complainant’s factual testimony. The Complainant’s “unconvincing demeanor,” his “evasions about past matters,” and “the plethora of credible witnesses testifying against him” sufficiently undermined his claims.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Bloomfield v. MA Department of Correction, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint from a DOC Sergeant alleging a racially-motivated hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination based on disability from diabetes. Many of the Complainant’s allegations fell outside the applicable statute of limitations, including some charges dating back to 1990. Those charges that were not untimely were neither credible nor sufficient to support the claims.

The hearing officer reasoned that the one-year gap between the protected activity of filing an MCAD charge and the Complainant’s subsequent termination was too long in this case to support an inference of causation. Additionally, there was credible evidence showing that the penalties imposed on the Complainant “were valid, job-related responses to misconduct, not punishments for complaining about discrimination.” The Complainant was disciplined for making false claims of misconduct against other employees and for lying about sleeping while on duty, not for making allegations of discrimination.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Adelabu v. Teradyne Inc. Burns and Schwartz, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages for race-based discrimination. There was sufficient evidence that the Respondent manager expected a greater degree of deference from black subordinates than from white ones. The hostile environment that resulted from racial bias “adversely affected the Complainant’s working conditions and caused him significant distress.”

The Complainant was entitled to emotional distress damages for disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on race. There was insufficient evidence, however, to find that the Complainant had been retaliated against when he was moved to a different position with a lower designation, since the change appeared to be a good faith effort to alleviate conflicts arising from a prior project. Similarly, the hearing officer concluded that the Complainant was not constrictively discharged.

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 Ke v. New England Baptist Hospital, the MCAD dismissed a complaint accusing the Respondent orthopedic hospital of unlawful termination on the basis of age, disability, race, and national origin. The Complainant was a trained cardiologist of Chinese national origin who worked as an echocardiographer after coming to the United States in 1983. She injured her back while at work in April 2010 and was terminated following an incident in May 2010 that prompted a patient complaint regarding quality of care.

The hearing officer concluded that the Respondent “articulated a reasonable belief, based on a thorough investigation, that Complainant had engaged in serious breaches of policy for which she accepted no responsibility,” which justified termination. There was insufficient credible evidence to conclude that the Respondent was motivated by discriminatory intent. Even if the termination was harsh or unfair, it was clear that the decision to terminate arose from misconduct and subsequent failure to accept responsibility rather than discriminatory animus.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Loewy v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, the MCAD dismissed the complaint alleging racial discrimination and retaliation against the Respondent, a drug development company based in Cambridge. The Complainant alleged that he was unlawfully terminated for refusing to lower the performance rating of a black employee under his supervision which, in turn, would have made it easier for the Respondent to terminate that employee without the appearance of racial discrimination.

The hearing officer determined that the preponderance of credible evidence established no causal connection between the Complainant resisting the instruction to give a lower performance rating and his subsequent termination, thereby undermining the prima facie case for retaliation. The Respondent provided credible testimony that the Complainant was terminated due to concerns about his performance and a change in the company’s personnel needs.

Continue Reading →

by

Race discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Race discrimination claims, like other employment law claims, are subject to strict statute of limitations filing deadlines. Subject to certain very limited exceptions, the failure to file within the applicable deadline will forever bar a victim of employment discrimination from recovering damages – which can include financial loss, emotional distress, and punitives.

In Green v. Brennan, the United States Supreme Court decided when the filing period for a constructive discharge begins to run. There, the plaintiff, Marvin Green, worked for the Postal Service for 35 years. In 2008, he applied for a promotion and was passed over. Green alleged that he was denied the promotion because of his race and that he suffered retaliation thereafter. In 2011, two of Green’s supervisors accused him of delaying the mail; a criminal offense which prompted an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). During the investigation, the supervisors provided Green with a letter re-assigning him to off-duty status. Although the OIG ultimately concluded that no further investigation was required, the supervisors maintained to Green that “the OIG is all over this” and that the criminal charge “could be a life changer.”

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Wilson v. MA Dept. of Transitional Assistance, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint alleging that employees at a state agency had engaged in discrimination on the basis of race/color and retaliation. The Complainant’s testimony relied largely on claims that several employees repeatedly referred to her as “the black girl” or “the new black girl” and that a supervisor excessively sent back her work for corrections.

The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a racially hostile workplace or disparate treatment based on racial animus. The Complainant’s testimony was consistently deemed not credible, leading to the conclusion that “she fabricated a self-serving fictional account of racial intolerance and hostility.” Furthermore, there was no credible evidence of a causal connection between the alleged discrimination and the retaliatory behavior. The hearing officer further noted that the Respondent took prompt investigative action by opening a thorough investigation within a few weeks of the initial complaints.

Continue Reading →