Articles Posted in Hearing Officer Judith E. Kaplan

by

Overview: In Martins v. Isabel’s Pizza DBA Papa John’s Pizza, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded emotional distress damages with 13 weeks of back pay. The Complainant, who at the time was a high school student working as a pizza-maker for a Papa John’s franchise, brought claims of sexual harassment and constructive discharge against the franchise operator. She had received increasingly sexually suggestive text messages from her manager; eventually, the manager cornered her at the end of a night shift and groped her.

The manager was fired and was subsequently charged with indecent assault and battery, which resulted in a plea deal. Shortly after the incident, the Complainant learned that two of the manager’s cousins had come to the business looking for her, which she interpreted as a threat. The hearing officer determined that the events were clearly sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment and that the Respondent was vicariously liable. Additionally, the potential threat of workplace violence coupled with the employer’s insufficient response meant that the Complainant had been constructively discharged.

Continue Reading →

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 Phillips v. Electro-Term-Hollingsworth, the MCAD found in favor of the Complainant and awarded back pay plus emotional distress damages for a sexual harassment claim against the Respondent electronic wiring manufacturer. The Complainant, who worked briefly at the Respondent company as a wire harness assembler, had asked coworkers to stop speaking graphically about sex acts in her presence. In response, those coworkers engaged in increasingly threatening behavior to which the Complainant’s superiors provided a limited and unhelpful reaction.

Even though the hearing officer found that the Complainant embellished some of her factual testimony, the officer determined that coworkers did indeed conduct repeated vulgar discussions of sexual acts within earshot of the Complainant and threatened her after she reported that conduct. The employer had a duty to inquire into the specific allegations and failed to conduct a thorough investigation. The hearing officer further concluded that the Complainant’s protected activity of reporting the harassment was the primary reason she had been threatened by termination, and the work environment was sufficiently hostile to support a constructive discharge claim.

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 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 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 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 Ke v. New England Baptist Hospital, the MCAD dismissed a complaint accusing the Respondent orthopedic hospital of unlawful termination on the basis of age, disability, race, and national origin. The Complainant was a trained cardiologist of Chinese national origin who worked as an echocardiographer after coming to the United States in 1983. She injured her back while at work in April 2010 and was terminated following an incident in May 2010 that prompted a patient complaint regarding quality of care.

The hearing officer concluded that the Respondent “articulated a reasonable belief, based on a thorough investigation, that Complainant had engaged in serious breaches of policy for which she accepted no responsibility,” which justified termination. There was insufficient credible evidence to conclude that the Respondent was motivated by discriminatory intent. Even if the termination was harsh or unfair, it was clear that the decision to terminate arose from misconduct and subsequent failure to accept responsibility rather than discriminatory animus.

Continue Reading →

by

Overview: In Wilson v. MA Dept. of Transitional Assistance, the MCAD found in favor of the Respondent and dismissed the complaint alleging that employees at a state agency had engaged in discrimination on the basis of race/color and retaliation. The Complainant’s testimony relied largely on claims that several employees repeatedly referred to her as “the black girl” or “the new black girl” and that a supervisor excessively sent back her work for corrections.

The hearing officer concluded that the Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a racially hostile workplace or disparate treatment based on racial animus. The Complainant’s testimony was consistently deemed not credible, leading to the conclusion that “she fabricated a self-serving fictional account of racial intolerance and hostility.” Furthermore, there was no credible evidence of a causal connection between the alleged discrimination and the retaliatory behavior. The hearing officer further noted that the Respondent took prompt investigative action by opening a thorough investigation within a few weeks of the initial complaints.

Continue Reading →