The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a jury verdict finding that the Town of Marshfield retaliated against former Fire Chief Kevin Robinson in violation of G. L. c. 151B after he opposed what he believed was gender discrimination against his niece, a probationary firefighter-paramedic in the department.  

Chief Robinson had served as a firefighter in Marshfield since 1978 and as fire chief since 2003. His niece, Shauna Robinson, was hired as a probationary firefighter-paramedic in 2013. During her probationary training period, concerns arose regarding her EMS and firefighter skills. The chief had recused himself from personnel matters involving family members pursuant to conflict-of-interest requirements, but in January 2014 he became involved after his brother complained that Shauna was being treated unfairly. Chief Robinson thereafter raised concerns that similarly situated male firefighters had historically been given remedial training and counseling, while Shauna was not afforded comparable opportunities.  

Town Administrator Rocco Longo and labor counsel John Clifford responded by questioning whether Chief Robinson’s involvement triggered a conflict of interest under G. L. c. 268A. The town referred the matter to the State Ethics Commission and retained outside investigators. Chief Robinson alleged that Longo and Clifford attempted to pressure him into retirement and retaliating against him for advocating on Shauna’s behalf.  

In 2015, after an outside investigative report concluded Chief Robinson may have violated the ethics law, the town placed him on administrative leave, barred him from fire department facilities, and initiated termination proceedings. He resigned shortly thereafter, asserting that he believed he would not receive a fair hearing and that the environment had become intolerable. The State Ethics Commission later declined to pursue sanctions against him.  

From there, the case became even more complicated. Chief Robinson first filed suit in federal court in 2016 asserting age discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, defamation, and related claims. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal claims but ruled that the district court should not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing those claims without prejudice so they could be refiled in state court.  

Chief Robinson then refiled in Massachusetts Superior Court in 2020. Most claims were later dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn, leaving only the retaliation claim against the town for trial. After a two-week jury trial in 2023, the jury found for Chief Robinson and awarded $300,000 in emotional distress damages and $1.1 million in punitive damages. The trial judge denied the town’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur. The town appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.  

On appeal, the town argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish retaliation and that the jury instructions improperly blended “pretext” and “mixed-motive” discrimination frameworks. The SJC held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Chief Robinson reasonably believed gender discrimination was occurring and that the town retaliated against him for opposing it. The Court emphasized evidence that male firefighters with deficiencies had previously received additional training opportunities that Shauna was denied, along with the close timing between Chief Robinson’s complaints and the adverse actions taken against him. 

The Court agreed that the jury instructions improperly mixed pretext and mixed-motive concepts, explaining that the case should have been analyzed solely under the traditional pretext framework. However, the Court concluded that the instructional errors were not prejudicial because the instructions as a whole adequately conveyed the governing law, the jury expressly found a direct causal connection between Chief Robinson’s protected activity and the adverse actions, and the punitive damages finding demonstrated that the jury concluded the town’s conduct was intentional and outrageous.  

The Supreme Judicial Court therefore affirmed the judgment in full, including the compensatory and punitive damages awards, and also held that Chief Robinson was entitled to recover appellate attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party under G. L. c. 151B. Here is a copy of the complaint: