362 F. Supp. 3d 25
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiff Dr. Mark Brader, a Biogen Principal Scientist, worked at Biogen from 2007 until his termination in November 2015 following a company-wide reduction in force.
- In June 2014 Brader gave a technical presentation; afterward he received critical feedback from his supervisor (Weiskopf). In late June–early July 2014 he exhibited atypical, incoherent emails and behavior, was hospitalized, and took medical leave July–October 2014 attributed to a temporary post‑surgical infection.
- While Brader was on leave, responsibility for an external project (Avia Biosystems) was reassigned; Brader returned to the same job in October 2014 with no accommodations requested other than reduced hours initially.
- In 2015 Biogen implemented a confidential restructuring (“Gemstone”); Senior VP Galdes placed Brader on the layoff list, and Brader’s employment ended November 6, 2015. Brader filed an MCAD/ADA claim in December 2015 and sued for disability discrimination, retaliation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- At summary judgment the court held that most events in 2014 were time‑barred; only the termination (within the 300‑day filing period) was timely and considered on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Brader’s Argument | Biogen’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / continuing violation | 2014 conduct is part of a continuing violation or discovery/equitable tolling so earlier acts are actionable | 2014 discrete acts are outside the 300‑day period; no ongoing discriminatory policy; no basis for tolling | Court: Most 2014 acts time‑barred; only termination (Oct 2015) timely |
| Notice / duty to investigate | HR policies required investigation; Brader told HR he did not feel safe, so Biogen had notice of disability‑based harassment | Brader never alerted HR that harassment was disability‑based; his reports were incoherent and HR offered EAP; no duty to investigate further | Court: Biogen lacked notice that harassment was disability‑based; HR response reasonable |
| Disability discrimination (ADA & Mass. Gen. Laws ch.151B) | Termination and project reassignment were motivated by disability; 2014 removal from Avia supports inference of discrimination | Layoff was part of legitimate, confidential RIF; Galdes decided for business reasons; reassignment during leave was reasonable | Court: Grant summary judgment for Biogen; plaintiff failed to show adverse action was due to disability or that employer’s reasons were pretextual |
| Retaliation | Complaints to supervisors/HR and requests for accommodations were protected; termination retaliatory | Complaints were not clearly protected activity (centered on disagreement about feedback); termination was legitimate RIF with no causal nexus | Court: Grant summary judgment for Biogen; plaintiff failed to show protected activity caused termination |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress | Workplace conduct caused severe emotional harm warranting tort recovery | Claim barred by Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA) exclusivity; workplace dispute insufficient to support tort | Court: Claim barred by MWCA; alternatively, fails on merits because behavior amounted to ordinary workplace disagreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete acts outside statutory period are time‑barred; hostile work environment claims evaluated in full)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in disparate‑treatment cases)
- Bonilla v. Muebles J.J. Alvarez, 194 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 1999) (EEOC/agency charge exhaustion prerequisite to suit)
- Thornton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 587 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2009) (continuing policy vs. isolated discriminatory acts)
- Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Mass. Com'n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 632 (2004) (Massachusetts continuing violation test)
- Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (2001) (timing for hostile work environment claims under Mass. law)
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) (accrual/discovery rule in employment discrimination context)
- Freadman v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2007) (ADA discrimination elements and analysis)