Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc.
671 F.3d 78
1st Cir.2012Background
- Diaz, an executive housekeeper at Jiten's Dorchester hotel, sued for age discrimination under ADEA and Chapter 151B after years of alleged harassment and withheld raises.
- Patel, the hotel’s general manager, allegedly berated Diaz and made ageist comments starting in 2003, signaling a hostile work environment.
- Diaz stopped receiving annual evaluations and raises beginning in 2004, while younger peers reportedly received raises in 2004–2006.
- Diaz reported Patel’s conduct to corporate headquarters; management took no disciplinary action against Patel.
- Patel’s replacement in 2005 did not fully remove his influence, and Diaz claimed ongoing discrimination after Patel left.
- Diaz was terminated in August 2006; she pursued EEOC/MCAD charges and then federal court litigation. The district court instructed a mixed-motive theory for Chapter 151B but not for the ADEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mixed-motive instruction was proper under state law | Diaz contends Massachusetts law permits mixed motive in Chapter 151B claims. | Jiten argues Gross v. FBL excludes mixed motive for age claims and thus the instruction was error. | Mixed-motive instruction valid under Massachusetts law for Chapter 151B. |
| Whether the district court should have certified the question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | Diaz did not address certification; court should decline. | Jiten sought certification as controlling Massachusetts law was unsettled after Haddad/Wynn. | No abuse of discretion; certification not required. |
| Whether the court erred by omitting a Chapter 151B 300-day statute of limitations instruction | Diaz argues the instruction was required and omission prejudiced Diaz. | Jiten contends failure to give instruction may be error; however, continuing violation doctrine applies. | Any error was not prejudicial; continuing violation analysis supports the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (U.S. 2009) (mixed motive not available in ADEA claims)
- Wynn & Wynn, P.C. v. Mass. Comm'n Against Discrimination, 729 N.E.2d 1068 (Mass. 2000) (Mass. law adopts mixed-motive burden-shifting framework for Chapter 151B)
- Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 914 N.E.2d 59 (Mass. 2009) (implicitly affirms mixed-motive framework under Massachusetts law)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989) (establishes mixed-motive burden-shifting framework (Title VII))
- Pelletier v. Town of Somerset, 939 N.E.2d 717 (Mass. 2010) (continuing violation doctrine in state discrimination claims)
- Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011) (prejudice standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Phoung Luc v. Wyndham Mgmt. Corp., 496 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2007) (state-law application of mixed-motive principles)