Dimanche v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 893 F.3d 1

Background

Michelle Dimanche, a Black woman of Haitian descent, worked for the MBTA (Green Line) from 2000–2013 and alleged repeated racial harassment by coworkers and supervisors.
After an altercation with a coworker on Jan. 25, 2013, Dimanche was suspended and, following an investigation and prior disciplinary warnings, was terminated on March 20, 2013; she contends prior infractions were fabricated to justify firing.
Dimanche sued (filed Jan. 8, 2015) alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; MBTA missed a timely answer due to clerical error and default was entered then later vacated subject to a sanction limiting MBTA’s trial proof to its motion affidavits.
At a four-day jury trial, Dimanche and three witnesses testified to long‑running racial insults, mocking of her accent, threats, management inaction, and comments attributed to supervisors (e.g., McClellan allegedly saying “I’ll get her black ass”). MBTA called nine witnesses but did not make offers of proof when testimony was limited by the sanction.
Jury returned a general verdict awarding $1,325,462.91 compensatory and $1,300,000 punitive damages. The district court denied MBTA post‑trial motions; MBTA appealed claiming insufficient evidence, trial errors (default sanction and late hostile-work‑environment theory), and later invoked Buntin regarding § 1981 against state actors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for wrongful termination compensatory damages	Dimanche: testimony and witnesses show discriminatory animus and fabricated discipline leading to termination	MBTA: evidence insufficient to support verdict	Court: Evidence sufficient; verdict matches stipulated termination damages; reasonable jury could credit discrimination evidence
Sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages	Dimanche: MBTA had notice, failed to remedy, conduct was egregious and prolonged	MBTA: punitive award unsupported	Court: State punitive standard met (Haddad factors); punitive award upheld and ratio acceptable
Default sanction limiting MBTA to affidavit evidence	Dimanche: limit was appropriate to cure prejudice from delay	MBTA: sanction was draconian, barred necessary defense evidence	Court: Sanction was legally erroneous and excessive but MBTA waived/failed to preserve objections and offers of proof; no plain‑error prejudice shown; verdict stands
Addition of hostile work environment theory at charge	Dimanche: jury could consider hostile work environment; damages differ by theory	MBTA: surprise/unfair prejudice from belated theory	Court: MBTA failed to timely object at trial; plain‑error review fails for lack of demonstrated prejudice or miscarriage of justice; verdict stands
Buntin (§ 1981 not available against state actors) & jurisdiction	Dimanche: state law claims pendent; § 1981 claim was litigated	MBTA: Buntin requires vacatur/dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction	Court: MBTA waived the argument by not raising it below; Buntin does not compel vacatur here given state law verdict and waiver

Key Cases Cited

Buntin v. City of Boston, 857 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2017) (addressing whether § 1981 authorizes damages claims against state actors)
Cariglia v. Hertz Equip. Rental Corp., 363 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2004) (corporate liability where neutral decisionmakers rely on biased information)
Haddad v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 914 N.E.2d 59 (Mass. 2009) (factors for awarding punitive damages in discrimination context)
Gyulakian v. Lexus of Watertown, Inc., 56 N.E.3d 785 (Mass. 2016) (assessing notice, remedial failure, and egregiousness for punitive damages)
Indigo Am., Inc. v. Big Impressions, LLC, 597 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (conditioning vacatur of default on a showing of meritorious defense)
Stewart v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2009) (default judgment is a drastic remedy; courts must use restraint)