Articles Posted in Prevailing Party

by

Overview: In Canton v. Biga Wholesale, Martin, etc., the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, awarding back pay and emotional distress damages for claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. The Complainant, who worked in bread production for Biga’s multiple bakery entities, credibly testified that her direct supervisor began making advances toward her. The Complainant rebuffed these advances, at which point they intensified to include unwanted grabbing/kissing and an offer by the supervisor to credit the Complainant for working a shift if she went home with him. The Complainant’s supervisor subsequently reduced her hours after she continued to reject his advances. After hiring an attorney and notifying company leadership of these incidents, the Complainant was eventually laid off.

The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant was the target of a “relentless campaign” of unwanted sexual propositions and that she suffered adverse changes in the terms of her employment as a result of rejecting those advances. Furthermore, the Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment because her supervisor’s conduct so clearly crossed the boundaries of a professional relationship. The hearing officer also found that the Complainant was laid off in retaliation to objecting to such conduct and that the actions of the company’s personnel officer in response were so egregious as to make her individually liable.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Codinha v. Bear Hill Nursing Center, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages for unlawful termination based on age and disability. The Complainant, a Certified Nursing Assistant, was in her early 70s when she fell at home and broke her wrist. After a period of medical leave, the Respondent informed her that it would not be feasible for her to return to work.

The Respondent claimed that the Complainant was terminated due to concerns over her attitude and poor performance, but the hearing officer determined that this was not credible. The hearing officer noted that the timing was suspect, that coworkers had not previously complained to management about the Complainant, that there were no negative reports about the Complainant’s performance, and that her most recent evaluation was positive. In addition, the Respondent had characterized the termination as a layoff, and not as a termination for cause.

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 Eslinger v. MA Department of Transportation, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent, dismissing a claim of gender discrimination from MassHighway’s former Deputy Chief Engineer of Bridges and Asset Management. The Complainant had alleged that she was the victim of gender discrimination when she was reassigned to an inferior MassDOT position and was passed over for a Deputy Chief role following a department-wide reorganization.

Though lacking direct evidence, the Complainant successfully set forth a prima facie case of gender-based discrimination under the three-stage burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The Respondent, however, provided credible evidence that the Complainant was reassigned because of consolidation required by the enactment of the Transportation Reform Act. The Complainant failed to show that the Respondent acted with a discriminatory motive or state of mind when carrying out the required reorganization.

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 Lapete v. Country Bank, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded back pay and emotional distress damages. The hearing officer determined that the Respondent bank failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for the Complainant’s disability—post-partum depression following the birth of her son via emergency C-section—and improperly terminated the Complainant instead of granting a reasonable request for a brief extension of medical leave.

Although the Complainant had been on leave for more than the 12 weeks afforded by statute and the FMLA, the Complainant met her obligation to engage in an interactive dialogue and keep the Respondent informed as to her condition. The Respondent, conversely, arbitrarily terminated the Complainant without engaging in any interactive dialogue. At the time of her termination, the Complainant was only seeking a few additional weeks of leave and not an indefinite extension. The hearing officer reasoned that sole reliance on the 12-week leave period required by the FMLA would be misguided because “Massachusetts disability law requires a more flexible approach” in determining what constitutes reasonable accommodation.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Aime v. MA Department of Correction, the MCAD found for the Respondent and dismissed a Correction Officer’s allegations of retaliation. The Complainant—who had previously filed a discrimination complaint that was ultimately dismissed—was an African American male with over 20 years in his role at the DOC. Although the Complainant did engage in protected activity by filing an MCAD complaint, there was credible evidence that the subsequent actions of which he complained were not taken in retaliation.

The hearing officer found, for example, that the Complainant’s earlier suspension for insubordination “was justified and was a legitimate, non-retaliatory” action related to his conduct of the same morning. Similarly, the Complainant’s transfer did not constitute an adverse employment action because it did not materially disadvantage him.

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 Tsigas v. Department of Correction, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the Complainant’s disability discrimination claim. The factual record established that the Complainant was not a handicapped individual as defined by statute, as his medical history presented “an array of conflicting symptoms that cannot be tied to a single disabling condition.” Furthermore, even if the Complainant had established he was handicapped, his inability to attend work consistently would disqualify him from performing the essential function of his role.

The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant’s termination was not due to disability but was instead because of extensive absenteeism. The Complainant was “lackadaisical in obtaining the medical clearances necessary to return to work,” and his “absences were numerous and poorly defined as to causation.”

Continue Reading →

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 →