915 F.3d 805
1st Cir.2019Background
- Heagney applied to be Fitchburg Police Chief in 2013–2014 and omitted prior employments and a past criminal prosecution (acquitted) from his résumé and application answers.
- Mayor Lisa Wong selected Heagney as her nominee, but after receiving an anonymous letter alleging past misconduct and criminal charges, Wong withdrew the nomination on March 18, 2014 and told a reporter Heagney "was not forthcoming" about a court case.
- BadgeQuest had been performing a background check but its investigation was curtailed; Fitchburg later obtained personnel files showing prior internal disciplinary actions and the 1988 prosecution that ended in acquittal.
- Heagney sued for defamation against Wong and for discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B § 4(9) against the City (failure-to-disclose protection for arrests not resulting in conviction). Jury found for Heagney on both claims: $750,000 compensatory for defamation and $750,000 punitive on the Chapter 151B claim (no compensatory damages on 151B due to after-acquired evidence). District Court denied JMOL/new trial; defendants appealed.
- First Circuit reversed the defamation judgment (statement was not false), affirmed liability under Chapter 151B, but vacated the punitive damages award (insufficient evidence of the degree of egregiousness or knowledge required for punitive damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation: whether Wong's statement that Heagney "was not forthcoming... about a court case" was false | Heagney: statement implied unlawful concealment and was false because ch.151B protected him from being required to disclose acquitted arrests | Wong/City: statement described Heagney's actual failure to volunteer the information during vetting and thus was true | Reversed defamation verdict — statement was literally true (Heagney failed to disclose) and truth is an absolute defense under First Amendment standards |
| Chapter 151B liability: whether Fitchburg discriminated by excluding applicant for failure to disclose an arrest not resulting in conviction | Heagney: Wong withdrew nomination because Heagney failed to disclose the criminal case; that nondisclosure was a motivating, unlawful reason under §4(9) | Fitchburg: decision was based on content of the obtained information or on omissions about prior employment or on applicant’s conduct; employer did not ask for the information | Affirmed liability — jury could reasonably find a mixed motive (nondisclosure was a motivating factor) and the City failed to prove it would have acted the same for lawful reasons alone |
| After-acquired evidence: whether evidence discovered after exclusion (personnel files showing administrative discipline) could be used for liability | Heagney: after-acquired evidence is only relevant to damages, not liability | Fitchburg: after-acquired evidence should defeat liability or at least be considered for it | Court: did not err in instructing jury to treat after-acquired evidence only for damages; employer cannot rely on evidence it did not have at the time to negate liability |
| Punitive damages under Haddad: whether evidence supported $750,000 punitive award for Chapter 151B violation | Heagney: defendants knowingly violated ch.151B and concealed misconduct at trial, warranting punishment and deterrence | Fitchburg: no clear knowledge that conduct violated ch.151B; conduct not sufficiently outrageous or egregious; concealment evidence insufficient | Reversed punitive award — insufficient evidence of conscious/willful unlawful conduct or the egregiousness required by Haddad to justify punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (truth is absolute defense; limits on treating true statements as actionable by inference)
- Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 782 N.E.2d 508 (Mass. 2003) (elements for defamation of a public figure under Massachusetts law)
- Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 475 U.S. 767 (1986) (plaintiff bears burden to show falsity where statements concern matters of public concern)
- Sindi v. El-Moslimany, 896 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (plenary review for mixed fact-law First Amendment falsity determinations)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-motive framework: employer cannot prevail by offering a reason that did not motivate decision at the time)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence cannot retroactively justify a discriminatory decision that occurred earlier)
- Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 914 N.E.2d 59 (Mass. 2009) (punitive damages under ch.151B require conduct that is outrageous or egregious beyond intentional discrimination)