833 F. Supp. 2d 133
D. Mass.2011Background
- Sisco, African-American, sues DLA Piper and three employees (Uehill, Scannell, Falby) for Title VII and Massachusetts Chapter 151B harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- Uchill harassed Sisco starting January 2008; incidents included staring at her chest, unwelcome lunch invitation, suggestive conduct, and touching; he also delivered offensive lyrics.
- Sisco reported harassment to HR on April 10, 2008; HR did not investigate Scannell’s conduct and did not reprimand Uchill.
- Sisco was reassigned to a floater position in April 2008, reducing pay/benefits, and Scannell replaced her for Uchill’s work; she alleges retaliation and ongoing hostility.
- Sisco alleged she was not considered for Falby’s legal-secretary vacancy in August 2008 despite superior qualifications; white candidate received the position; by late 2008 she faced more scrutiny and management changes; she filed MCAD/EEOC charges in November 2008 and was terminated February 12, 2009 after responding to MCAD.
- Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion is resolved with some claims dismissed and others allowed to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile environment under Title VII against DLA Piper | Sisco alleges pervasive supervisor harassment created hostile environment | No individual liability; harassment not sufficiently pervasive | Title VII hostile environment against DLA Piper plausible; individual claims dismissed |
| Hostile environment under Chapter 151B against DLA Piper and individuals | Chapter 151B claims mirror Title VII and include Uchill/Scannell | General/individual liability limited; some claims fail | Plausible against DLA Piper, Uchill, and Scannell; dismissals limited to certain individual claims under 151B |
| Retaliation under Title VII against DLA Piper | Complaint shows protected activity followed by adverse action (demotion, firing) | Evidence insufficient to show causal link | Plausible Title VII retaliation claim against DLA Piper |
| Retaliation under Chapter 151B against Falby and others | DLA Piper’s actions followed protected activity and involved Falby | Falby lacks direct causal link | Favorable to Falby on retaliation/abetted-retaliation claims; Falby’s direct liability limited |
| Race discrimination under Title VII and 151B against DLA Piper and Falby | Sisco alleges demotion/firing and missed promotion due to race; white candidates favored | Burden-shifting prima facie case not shown for some defendants | Plausible Title VII race discrimination against DLA Piper; Chapter 151B race claims against DLA Piper and Falby may stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; need for plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (two-prong plausibility approach; non-conclusory facts required)
- Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step approach for evaluating complaints; fair notice and plausibility)
- Agusty-Reyes v. Dep’t of Educ. of P.R., 601 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (employer liability standards; harassment standard in employment discrimination)
- Valentín-Almeyda v. Municipality of Aguadilla, 447 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2006) (totality-of-circumstances approach to severity/pervasiveness in harassment)