College-Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156 (1987)

A few weeks after College-Town hired the employee, Rizzi, her direct supervisor began engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct. He made repeated sexually suggestive comments, touched her back on one occasion, and at another time placed his hand over a slit in her dress while commenting on her clothing. During a performance discussion requested by Rizzi, the supervisor stated that she performed well and added a sexual remark about her body. On another occasion, he used an explicit sexual term to refer to her. Rizzi reported the conduct to the director of manufacturing, who stated that he was not qualified to address such matters and refused to discuss the complaint. Several days passed before Rizzi was able to report the conduct to another person within the company. An executive of College-Town later spoke with the supervisor, who denied the allegations. The company then held a meeting to address the matter. The supervisor and all other women in the department attended, but Rizzi was neither invited nor informed that the meeting would occur. During the meeting, the supervisor described the allegations, and the co-workers generally expressed support for him. College-Town conducted no further investigation after this meeting. Before the meeting took place, Rizzi had applied for a promotion in another department. After the meeting, College-Town informed her that she was not qualified for the position and hired another individual with more experience instead. Shortly after this, the company attempted to transfer Rizzi, citing reduced productivity caused by workplace tension. Rizzi was not told that the transfer was mandatory, and declined the transfer. Within weeks, College-Town terminated her employment. The trial court found that Rizzi’s supervisor created a sexually hostile work environment, that College-Town failed to take prompt and effective remedial action, and that the company retaliated against Rizzi by attempting to transfer her and by terminating her employment after she declined the transfer. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The Court held that sexual harassment may constitute sex discrimination under General Laws chapter 151B, section 4(1), which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of gender. The Court further agreed that the employer’s inadequate response to the harassment and its subsequent actions toward Rizzi supported findings of discrimination and retaliation.