Articles Posted in 2016

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 →

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

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 →