The US First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a jury verdict in favor of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts, in a race and religious discrimination suit brought by two Springfield firefighters.

Captain Marc Savage and Lieutenant Randolph Blake, both of whom are Black, sued the city, former Fire Commissioner Joseph Conant, and Fire Commissioner Bernard Calvi in 2018. Captain Savage is Muslim and Lieutenant Blake is a Jehovah’s Witness. They alleged racial and religious discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.

The firefighters’ claims arose out of promotional disputes dating back to 2014 and what they characterized as years of disparate treatment after they complained about discrimination.

Captain Savage alleged that after he took an examination for Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Commissioner Conant sought to invalidate the results because only two candidates had taken the exam. The other candidate was white and lived outside Springfield. Captain Savage contended that under the city’s residency ordinance, personnel promoted after March 17, 1995 were required to reside in Springfield, absent a waiver by the mayor. Captain Savage filed complaints with the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, alleging that the decision to invalidate the examination results was racially discriminatory.

Both alleged that they subsequently experienced discriminatory treatment in promotions, training, evaluations, and discipline, as well as retaliation, which they attribute to their discrimination complaints.

In 2016, Captain Savage and Lieutenant Blake were among the plaintiffs in an unsuccessful suit seeking to compel the city to enforce the residency requirement against firefighters promoted after March 17, 1995. The court ultimately held that firefighters hired before that date were exempt from the residency requirement, even if promoted afterward.

They also alleged that the department had a hostile work environment in which racist and anti-Muslim rhetoric was common. Between 2016 and 2020, Springfield firefighters allegedly posted racist and anti-Muslim material on private Springfield Fire Department related Facebook groups and personal Facebook pages.

The posts included racial slurs, anti-Muslim comments, references to Captain Savage as “a savage,” and comments suggesting that if he became Deputy Fire Chief, “everyone would have to pray five times a day.” Several of the firefighters responsible for the social media activity held supervisory positions, although none was in Captain Savage’s or Lieutenant Blake’s direct chain of command.

The current suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2018. By the time the case went to trial, the plaintiffs had withdrawn their remaining federal claims and elected not to proceed against Fire Commissioner Calvi and former Fire Commissioner Conant. The trial therefore proceeded solely against the City on claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B. The jury returned a verdict for the city on all counts.

Captain Savage and Lieutenant Blake appealed, arguing that several rulings and jury instructions improperly affected the verdict. Among their arguments were that the trial court mishandled a jury question concerning Lieutenant Blake’s promotional history, improperly instructed the jury concerning earlier Civil Service Commission decisions, allowed the city to invoke First Amendment considerations concerning the social media posts, and incorrectly instructed the jury on the city’s liability for harassment committed by supervisors.

The First Circuit rejected each argument.

Of particular significance was the firefighters’ contention that Springfield should be strictly liable under Chapter 151B for harassment committed by anyone holding a supervisory position in the department, regardless of whether that person actually supervised them.

The First Circuit rejected that interpretation. It explained that an employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor who has actual supervisory authority over the employee. A person does not qualify merely because he or she holds supervisory rank elsewhere in the organization.

When the alleged harasser lacks supervisory authority over the employee, the person is treated as a coworker. In that situation, the employer may be liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and adequate measures to address it. Quoting from the decision:

• Savage and Blake assert that the district court improperly conflated supervisory and coworker harassment in its “Liability” instruction on vicarious liability, which was part of the introductory portion of the jury instructions.
• They point to the court’s statement that the City’s liability arises if “the supervisor knew or should have known about the discriminatory conduct” of others — which states the negligence standard for non-supervisors rather than the strict liability responsibility of supervisors.
• Plaintiffs, however, take this portion of the instruction out of context.
• The sentences immediately preceding the language they cite lay out the strict liability standard for supervisors and tell the jurors that “[t]he City, like any employer, is responsible for and liable for the conduct of its supervisors on whom the City confers authority.
• Therefore, the City can be liable for the conduct engaged in by supervisors, whether or not it knew about the conduct and whether or not it had any opportunity to stop the conduct or take remedial action.”
• If a person with supervisory responsibility over the [p]laintiff is responsible for the hostile work environment, the City is liable whether or not the City knew about or had the opportunity to stop the conduct or take remedial action.
• On the other hand, employees who have no supervisory authority over the [p]laintiffs are treated as any other coworker.
• The City is liable for a hostile work environment created by such employees if the City knew or should have known about the harassment, yet failed to take prompt and adequate measures to address it.
• These instructions properly state the law and did not impose any additional burden of proof on Blake and Savage.
• We therefore reject the claim of error concerning the vicarious liability instruction.

The First Circuit thusly concluded that the jury instructions adequately explained that distinction.

The court also rejected the firefighters’ argument concerning the city’s references to First Amendment considerations in responding to the social media posts. The city did not argue that the posts were constitutionally protected as a matter of law, but instead referred to First Amendment concerns as one of the considerations confronting Fire Commissioner Conant in deciding how to respond.

Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of the case or its instructions to the jury, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment for the City of Springfield.