107 N.E.3d 1179
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Lisa Scarlett, a Black provisional second-grade teacher in Boston Public Schools (BPS), received nonrenewal of her one-year contract for the 2011–2012 school year after a schoolwide staff reduction tied to a district budget shortfall.
- In Feb. 2011 principal Norman Townsend recommended nonrenewal of two provisional teachers (Scarlett and another Black teacher); five other provisional teachers were recommended to be retained.
- BPS had recently entered an agreement to expand services for English Language Learner (ELL) students and prioritized SEI/ESL-capable or Spanish‑speaking staff; Scarlett lacked Spanish fluency and did not receive ESL certification until three days after learning of nonrenewal.
- BPS articulated multiple, shifting reasons for nonrenewal: performance problems, lack of ESL certification, and lack of Spanish-speaking ability; some documentary and testimonial evidence contradicted those reasons.
- Scarlett filed a G. L. c. 151B race‑discrimination claim; the Superior Court granted summary judgment to BPS on the race claim (and also dismissed a national‑origin claim, which Scarlett did not appeal). The Appeals Court reversed as to the race claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scarlett made out a prima facie case in a reduction‑in‑force | Scarlett: discharged as a provisional teacher and was in a protected class; selection of only two Black provisional teachers for nonrenewal raises an inference of discrimination | BPS: other retained provisional teachers had SEI/ESL skills or Spanish fluency making them not similarly situated | Held: Scarlett made the “small showing” required; discharging the only two Black provisional teachers sufficed to raise an inference of discrimination |
| Whether BPS offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for nonrenewal | Scarlett: BPS’s stated reasons are pretextual and inconsistent with contemporaneous statements and documents | BPS: nonrenewal based on performance concerns, lack of ESL certification, and need for Spanish-speaking staff to serve ELL population | Held: BPS articulated multiple reasons (performance, ESL, Spanish) — sufficient at stage two to shift burden to Scarlett |
| Whether BPS’s proffered reasons were pretext | Scarlett: documentary and testimonial contradictions (principal’s statements that performance did not drive decision; late ESL certification; at least one retained teacher also lacked ESL) show pretext | BPS: inconsistencies are poor record-keeping or justify decision-making | Held: Scarlett produced sufficient evidence of pretext (including direct contradictions) to survive summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the discrimination claim | Scarlett: factual disputes and evidence of pretext require denial of summary judgment | BPS: no reasonable jury could find discriminatory animus given legitimate staffing needs and qualifications differences | Held: Summary judgment for BPS reversed as to race claim; factual issues remain for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the three‑stage burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130 (Massachusetts adoption of McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34 (prima facie, RIF context, and the “small showing” standard)
- Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp., 473 Mass. 672 (summary judgment standard in discrimination cases and burden on employer moving for summary judgment)
- Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (elements required for G. L. c. 151B claims and proof of pretext)
- Verdrager v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 474 Mass. 382 (pretext analysis; showing pretext can permit inference of discrimination)
- Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437 (Massachusetts is a pretext‑only jurisdiction)