Articles Posted in Hearing Officer Eugenia M. Guastaferri

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 Joyce v. CSX Transportation, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, awarding six years of back pay and considerable emotional distress damages for a disability-based discrimination claim. The 66-year-old Complainant, who was a conductor with the Respondent transportation company, suffered from cognitive disabilities such as ADHD and depression. He charged his employer with denying him a reasonable accommodation in requiring him to use an administrative computer system with which he had a great deal of difficulty.

In finding a failure to accommodate, the hearing officer reasoned that the Complainant’s requests for accommodation were fairly straightforward. The Respondent’s assertion that it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s disabilities was deemed not credible. The hearing officer held the Respondent liable under the “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination, finding a supervisor with discriminatory animus who influenced the decision to take disciplinary action against the Complainant, action which was deemed pretext for discrimination.

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 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 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 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 →

by

Overview: In Carta v. Wingate Healthcare, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant, a 69-year-old and qualified handicapped individual who was terminated from her health care position. The MCAD awarded emotional distress damages and ordered the Respondent to conduct training of certain human resources employees after the Complainant was injured during the course of her employment and was subsequently terminated. After her injury, the Complainant returned to work on a part-time basis but was ultimately fired because she could not return to full-time work.

Finding the essential issue to be whether further extending the Complainant’s part-time work schedule was a reasonable accommodation, the hearing officer reasoned that that the Respondent did have a further obligation to the Complainant. The prognosis for the Complainant’s recovery was unclear, and so termination was premature. The evidence ultimately did not support a finding that the Complainant could have worked full time, however, so she was not entitled to lost wages beyond what she had already been compensated by worker’s compensation and a third-party lawsuit recovery relating to her injury.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Savage v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded substantial back pay and emotional distress damages for employment discrimination based on a disability. The Complainant had a history of dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, and chronic depression prior to being hired by the Respondent, a state agency. These disabilities were made apparent to the Respondent through the Complainant’s initial self-identification and several subsequent disclosures to various supervising staff.

The hearing officer found that the agency failed to engage in meaningful communication with the Complainant and failed to fashion meaningful accommodation for his disabilities. The officer further concluded that the Complainant’s training director “seemed more intent on terminating Complainant’s employment as quickly as possible while he was on probation to avoid dealing with the collective bargaining rights that would adhere once he became a non-probationary employee.” The Complainant had also been subjected to a hostile work environment due to demeaning, bully, and intimidating conduct by the training director.

Continue Reading →