Pelletier v. Town of Somerset
939 N.E.2d 717
Mass.2010Background
- Pelletier, a female highway department laborer, worked 1984–2000 as the only woman in the department aside from summer interns.
- Cabral became Pelletier’s foreman in 1998 and supervisor in 2000, supervising her directly.
- Pelletier injured her back in 1999 and returned May 2000 under Cabral’s supervision.
- In summer 2000 Pelletier filed a grievance alleging discriminatory mistreatment by Cabral, which the town denied.
- MCAD complaint filed October 18, 2000 alleged gender and sexual orientation discrimination and a hostile work environment.
- Trial evidence at 2007 trial included incidents pre-dating Cabral’s tenure and extensive testimony about a hostile, pornographic workplace; jury awarded damages; remittitur reduced but Plaintiff accepted; matter appealed to determine scope of MCAD investigation and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of MCAD investigation vs. later trial scope | Pelletier argues broader pre-Cabral evidence should be admissible | Town argues only Cabral-era acts fall within MCAD scope | New trial on liability and damages needed due to scope issue |
| Continued violation doctrine applicability | Plaintiff claims continuing pattern extends time for claims | Defendant contends limitations apply and scope limits preclude pre-Cabral harm | Continuing violation doctrine may extend damages but does not broaden MCAD scope; requires new trial |
| Remittitur and cross-appeal effect | Remittitur should not foreclose cross-appeal challenge | Remittitur finalizes damages; cross-appeal should be barred | Plaintiff not precluded from challenging remittitur on cross appeal if defendant appeals; remittitur judgment vacated for new trial |
| Judgment n.o.v. sufficiency | Sufficient evidence supported liability | Evidence insufficient for liability | Judgment notwithstanding the verdict properly denied; substantial evidence supported liability |
| Subject matter scope for new trial | Evidence within Cabral era should be admitted | Evidence outside scope should be excluded | New trial on all issues necessary due to improper admission of out-of-scope evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (Mass. 2001) (continuing violation doctrine and scope questions in discrimination claims)
- Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585 (Mass. 2009) (administrative scope informs subsequent court actions)
- Lattimore v. Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 1996) (administrative filing to prompt investigation and notice)
- Windross v. Village Automotive Group, Inc., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 861 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (scope of MCAD investigation and related discovery rules)
- Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 432 Mass. 107 (Mass. 2000) (judge determines relevance of evidence outside scope; new trial considerations)
- Middlesex Supply, Inc. v. Martin & Sons, 354 Mass. 373 (Mass. 1968) (new trial when improper evidence likely affected verdict)