Pearson v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14254
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Pearson, African-American MBTA employee since 1990, is a signal inspector overseeing maintainers.
- Disciplinary history includes 2004 five-day suspension and 2006 alleged dereliction at Sullivan Square.
- In 2006 MBTA considered demotion but ultimately recommended termination; labor relations involvement followed.
- October 2006 suspension and May 2007 termination were processed through a lengthy internal review; arbitration later found lack of just cause and reinstated Pearson in January 2008 with back pay.
- After reinstatement Pearson faced further discipline; he alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in MCAD/EEOC filings and district court suit.
- District court granted summary judgment for MBTA on discrimination and retaliation claims except for the post-reinstatement conduct, which was not addressed by the MBTA motion; Pearson appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination: whether discharge was motivated by race. | Pearson asserts pretextual reasons; disparate treatment shows discrimination. | MBTA's insubordination-based discharge is legitimate non-discriminatory rationale. | Discrimination claim fails; no pretext shown; legitimate reason supported. |
| Retaliation: whether termination was for writing to Senator Kennedy. | Termination causally linked to protected activity (Kennedy letter). | Termination recommended before letter; no causal link; post-hoc retaliation inference not supported. | No causal link; no retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court-1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court-2000) (pretext framework after legitimate reason shown)
- Cham v. Station Operators, Inc., 685 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.-2012) (adopts McDonnell Douglas framework in First Circuit)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court-1993) (pretext case law mechanics following prima facie case)
- Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., 696 F.3d 128 (1st Cir.-2012) (mere business judgment disputes insufficient to prove pretext)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir.-2005) (causation in retaliation requires a link to protected conduct)
- Ramos v. Roche Prods., Inc., 936 F.2d 43 (1st Cir.-1991) (causation in retaliation must be direct, not post-hoc)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir.-1991) (knowledge of protected activity after adverse action does not establish retaliation)
- Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.-1990) (summary judgment proper where only conclusory allegations arise)
- Windross v. Barton Protective Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 98 (1st Cir.-2009) (insubordination can be sufficient to sustain termination)
- Sullivan v. Raytheon Co., 262 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.-2001) (retroactive retaliation claims require proper temporal causation)