Articles Posted in Respondent

by

Overview: In Swenson v. Moini, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint alleging gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. The Complainant, the bookkeeper and office manager within a dental practice, claimed that a partner at the practice had created a hostile work environment through sexual harassment. The Complainant ultimately waived her claim against the corporation and pursued the allegations against the individual Respondent only.

In dismissing the complaint, the hearing officer determined that the allegations of hostile work environment sexual harassment were untimely. Furthermore, the conduct was not objectively offensive and therefore did not support a hostile work environment claim. Moreover, the Complainant failed to show that she was particularly distressed or offended by the Respondent’s behavior, as she continued to work for the Respondent for several years and did not complain.

Continue Reading →

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 Morrison v. Wilder Brothers Tire Co., the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent auto repair business and dismissed the complaint filed by its former operations manager. The Complainant, who suffered from ADHD, mild autism, and depression, alleged that he was terminated one day after providing a letter stating that he needed a leave of absence due to an episode of severe depression.

In dismissing the complaint, the hearing officer reasoned that the Complainant’s deteriorating performance and attitude provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The hearing officer credited testimony from the owner of the business that he made the decision to terminate the Complainant after the Complainant failed to show up for work over the weekend and not after receiving the request for a leave of absence shortly thereafter. The hearing officer was “not entirely unsympathetic” to the Complainant’s request for a leave of absence but concluded that the Respondent no longer had an obligation to accommodate his disabilities due to an ongoing failure to satisfy the requirements of the job.

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 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 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 →

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 →