Thirkield v. Neary & Hunter Ob/Gyn, LLC
76 F. Supp. 3d 339
D. Mass.2015Background
- Thirkield worked as a medical assistant at Neary & Hunter OB/GYN (small family practice) from Jan 2010–Apr 2012; Faye Hunter (receptionist, daughter of a physician-owner) allegedly groped Thirkield and made sexual comments multiple times in Jan–Feb 2012.
- Thirkield reported the incidents to Office Manager Kathy Cregg and Practice Manager Paul Rieth on Feb 29, 2012; they met with Thirkield, apologized, promised to address the conduct, and later met with Faye to tell her the touching must stop.
- Alexandra Cook corroborated some inappropriate touching by Faye and also reported concerns to management; the parties dispute whether Cook complained before Feb 29 or on that same day.
- Thirkield was not physically touched again after her complaint (by her account), but she says coworkers then gave her the "cold shoulder," and she resigned on Apr 2, 2012, citing harassment and reduced hours.
- Thirkield sued under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B for hostile work environment (against employer), sexual harassment against Faye individually (151B), retaliation, and aiding/abetting by certain supervisors; defendants moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thirkield proved a hostile-work-environment sexual-harassment claim against employer (Title VII & 151B) | Thirkield says repeated groping, sexual comments, and witnessing similar conduct by Faye were severe/pervasive enough to create an abusive environment | Defendants say incidents were de minimis and employer acted promptly and appropriately after notice | Court: triable on severity/pervasiveness, but employer is entitled to summary judgment because management took prompt and appropriate action, so no employer liability (Counts I & III granted) |
| Whether Faye is liable individually under M.G.L. c.151B for sexual harassment | Thirkield contends Faye’s repeated groping and comments meet 151B’s severe/pervasive standard | Faye contends conduct insufficient as matter of law | Court: denied summary judgment on individual 151B claim against Faye — triable issue on severity/pervasiveness (Count V survives) |
| Whether Thirkield proved retaliation (constructive discharge / materially adverse action) | Thirkield says coworkers’ "cold shoulder" after complaint forced her to resign (constructive discharge) | Defendants say silent treatment is not a materially adverse action and does not establish constructive discharge | Court: cold shoulder not materially adverse; constructive discharge standard not met; summary judgment for defendants on all retaliation counts (Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XII) |
| Whether supervisors aided and abetted harassment under 151B | Thirkield argues Cregg and Rieth failed to act adequately (and/or told others) thereby aiding/abetting; seeks individual liability for supervisors and Dr. Todd Hunter | Defendants say management promptly addressed complaint with Faye, kept complaint confidential, and did not participate in harassment | Court: no evidence supervisors shared intent to discriminate or committed a distinct wrong; aiding/abetting claims against Cregg, Rieth, and Dr. Hunter dismissed (Counts VII, IX, XI granted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party moving for summary judgment may show absence of evidence)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Gerald v. Univ. of P.R., 707 F.3d 7 (First Circuit: factors for severe or pervasive harassment)
- Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (aggregation of bad acts in harassment analysis)
- Bhatti v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 659 F.3d 64 (factors relevant to severity/frequency and objective/subjective offensiveness)
- Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 303 F.3d 387 (employer liability requires notice and failure to take prompt appropriate action)
- Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., 639 F.3d 1 (verbal warnings can be an appropriate employer response)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge standard)