Articles Posted in $100k to $200k Emotional Distress Damages

Overview: In Babu v. Aspen Dental Management, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, awarding back pay and emotional distress damages for claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. The Complainant, a Romanian immigrant and trained dental assistant, alleged that she was subjected to harassment because of her accent and was retaliated against for objecting to the officer manager’s sexualized behavior towards male patients. The Complainant had consistently received very positive employment reviews in her eight years at Aspen Dental practices prior to the incident in question but was ultimately terminated fourteen months after filing her MCAD complaint.

The hearing officer credited the Complainant’s testimony that she confronted her supervisor about flirting with a patient in the office over the supervisor’s denial. Under a disparate treatment analysis, the hearing officer found direct and indirect evidence of national origin discrimination. The justifications put forth by the Respondent for the discipline against the Complainant and for her eventual termination were found to be illegitimate after close scrutinization. There was a causal connection between the protected activity of complaining about the supervisor’s demeanor and the subsequent adverse employment actions, which had included a demotion in pay and title.

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.