The US District Court in Boston recently handed down a partial dismissal of an employee’s claim against her sports-bar employer.  The court found that the employee had not presented sufficient facts to allege that the termination of her employment was due to her race (Black), national origin (Guatemala), or sex (female).  However, other claims of harassment and wage violations were not dismissed.

Background

The employee began working at the sports bar in October 2021. During her employment, her Puerto Rican male supervisor allegedly made offensive comments about her national origin, including statements such as, “You are a nobody in this country,” and “Whenever I want, I can call immigration.” He also made sexual remarks, displayed explicit images, and made unwanted sexual advances, which the employee rejected.

Additionally, the employee was paid in cash and did not receive overtime pay or benefits.  She did not receive sick days, vacation, or meal breaks.  She raised concerns to her supervisor about the lack of benefits provided to her compared to other employees. In March 2023, shortly after she made her complaint, the supervisor fired her, citing her complaints about being underpaid as the reason.

Complaint

The employee filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment under federal and state laws.  Her complaint alleged two different types of discrimination: disparate treatment and sexual harassment.  The complaint also included state and federal claims of wage violations and wage-based retaliation.

The employer’s dismissal motion addressed the discrimination claims, including claims that she was subject to a hostile work environment and the Massachusetts overtime and wage-based retaliation claim.  The court summarily dismissed the disparate treatment claims, finding that the employee had no alleged facts to prove that the reason given for her termination, her complaints about wages, was a pretext for discrimination.

Disparate treatment is conduct that treats an employee differently based on a characteristic protected by the law.  While that type of discrimination is distinct from hostile work environment harassment, there is sometimes overlap, as seen in this case,

Court Ruling

The court refused to dismiss the employee’s hostile work environment harassment claims that were based on sex and national origin.  But it granted dismissal to the employer for claims of racial harassment, finding that “no plausible claim” had been made to support the claim that the employee was harassed because of her race.

The court dismissed the state law violations related to overtime and indicated that the employee conceded the dismissal. The court’s opinion does not indicate how it reached this conclusion.  The federal law wage claims, including one for wage-based retaliation, remain a part of the case.

This case is at an early stage of litigation and will continue with the remaining harassment and wage claims.  It is a good example of the difficulty of pursuing a disparate treatment type of claim, as the employee must prove an employer’s discriminatory intent behind an adverse employment action.  Note that complaining about wage violations is a protected activity under federal and state wage laws.  The employer’s stated reason for the termination was the employee’s complaint about wage violations so that the employee may succeed with her federal wage violation claims.

For More Information

If AIM members have questions about compliance with discrimination, wage laws, or any other HR matter, they may call the AIM HR Helpline at 800-470-6277 or helpline@aimnet.org.

To further support compliance efforts, AIM offers comprehensive Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Training designed to help employers foster a respectful workplace and meet legal obligations. Our training is tailored to meet Massachusetts-specific requirements and equips your team with the tools to address these critical issues proactively. Contact us to learn more about scheduling a training session for your organization.