Background
Captain Marc Savage, a Muslim, and Lieutenant Randolph Blake, a Jehovah’s Witness, are Black firefighters in the Springfield Fire Department. They alleged that the City and department discriminated and retaliated against them in promotion, training, evaluation, and discipline decisions, and tolerated a racially and religiously hostile workplace that included offensive and threatening social-media posts by firefighters.
After partial dismissal of their original federal and state claims, the case went to a nine-day jury trial in June 2024 on Chapter 151B discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment claims against the City. The plaintiffs withdrew their remaining federal claims and did not proceed against the individual defendants at trial. The jury found for the defendants on all counts.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed. The trial court did not plainly err by telling jurors to rely on their collective memory when they asked when Blake became second on a captain’s promotion list; plaintiffs had not objected to that response, and the court did not tell the jury that no evidence existed on the point.
The court also upheld the instructions concerning Massachusetts Civil Service Commission decisions and the First Amendment. The instruction properly left retaliation for the jury to decide despite the Civil Service decisions, and defense counsel’s closing remarks about the difficulty of regulating private social-media speech did not warrant an unrequested limiting instruction. Although one introductory vicarious-liability instruction incorrectly referred to a supervisor’s knowledge, the charge as a whole correctly distinguished strict liability for harassment by supervisors with authority over a plaintiff from negligence liability for coworker harassment.
Key Takeaways
- An unobjected-to response to a jury question is reviewed for plain error.
- Chapter 151B imposes strict liability for harassment by supervisors with actual authority over the affected employee; coworker harassment requires employer knowledge and an inadequate response.
- Jury instructions are assessed as a whole, and an isolated misstatement is not reversible when the overall charge correctly states the law.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of preserving trial objections, including objections to jury communications, closing argument, and instructions. It also confirms that an employee’s general supervisory status is insufficient for strict employer liability under Chapter 151B unless the supervisor had actual authority over the particular plaintiff.