The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently overturned an award of summary judgment granted to the state’s prison system in an employee’s claim that her dismissal was retaliation for her complaint of sexual harassment.  Summary judgment is granted only when a party shows that there are no genuine issues of fact and that the party is entitled to summary judgment (dismissal of the case) as a matter of law.

The Appeals Court found that there were issues of fact in this case, and that summary judgment was not warranted.

The case involved a female employee who was hired as a corrections officer in August of 2014.  In December of 2015, she filed an internal report of sexual harassment against a “captain” (presumably a supervisor).  The department’s investigation found that harassment had occurred, and the captain was suspended and transferred to another facility.

The employee alleged that soon after her report of harassment, she began experiencing retaliation by fellow employees.  They would go silent when she entered a room, hang up on her when she called on the telephone, and wrote derogatory phrases on her academy portrait. When she was five or six months pregnant, she was sent to help with a combative inmate who was known to kick and punch staff members.  She reported the retaliation to a captain, who said he would address the matter, but she believes nothing was done.

During the summer of 2015, the employee sought treatment for anxiety and depression.  Over the next year, the ostracization and other retaliatory behavior continued.  In November of 2016, she took a leave of absence for stress and received worker’s compensation benefits.

During the worker’s comp leave, the employer surveilled her, as was its practice.  Through this, they discovered that the employee violated its rule prohibiting the use of tobacco both on and off the job.  The employee signed a last-chance agreement for the violation in August of 2017.  On December 11, 2018, the employee provided a note from her therapist saying that she could return to work without restrictions “at this time,” but also included a return date of February 10, 2019.  This was later clarified in another letter from the therapist indicating that the employee needed approximately six more weeks to recover.  The employer terminated the employee on February 6, 2019, for violation of its tobacco policy pursuant to the employee’s last chance agreement.

The only issue to be addressed at this stage was whether the employee had presented sufficient evidence that the employer had knowledge of the retaliation she had experienced.  The lower court ruled in favor of the employer, finding that the employee had produced “scant” evidence that there was a causal connection between her report of retaliation and her termination.  The Appeals Court agreed that the evidence was scant, but reversed the summary judgment order, finding that the evidence presented was “sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact in order to survive a motion for summary judgment.”

Under principles of agency, knowledge acquired by an agent of the company (the captain) in the scope of his employment may be imputed to the employer.  Therefore, there existed a factual issue to be decided by a factfinder (judge or jury) as to whether the employer had knowledge of the report of harassment.

The outcome of this case reinforces the notion that any report of retaliation by an employee is to be investigated and addressed.  While this decision is not the final resolution of this case, it allows the employee to continue to pursue her claim.

Members with questions about harassment, retaliation, or any other human-resource matter may call the AIM HR Helpline at 1-800-470-6277.