Articles Posted in 2017

by

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 →