Age, Advocacy, and Allegations

Description

A longtime employee alleged age discrimination and retaliation by her supervisor.

What Happened?

The claimant was a woman of an age-protected class working in academic medicine. After working closely with her supervisor and mentor for many years, she left to pursue other employment but was later re-hired. Upon her return, the claimant alleged she was paid less than her younger, less experienced colleagues and filed a complaint with HR. In response, she was granted a new title and a salary increase. She alleged that at least two other employees also received raises at the same time.

The claimant continued to speak with colleagues about their compensation and came to believe that there was a systemic pattern of age discrimination within the team. She alleged that, since inquiring about her colleagues’ salaries, she experienced retaliatory behavior from her supervisor, including a critical performance review, being placed on a fixed work schedule, and facing threats of termination.

Complaint

The claimant filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). The institution responded to the Charge with its Position Statement, which maintained that there was no evidence of age discrimination in the payment of employees, citing that the claimant was paid weekly and received a different benefits package than the allegedly comparable employees, who were paid monthly. The institution and supervisor also maintained that the claimant had been given consistent support and professional opportunities throughout her tenure. She also made a claim of disability discrimination, but this was secondary to her other claims.

After the Position Statement was served, the claimant removed her Charge from the MCAD and filed a civil action in the Massachusetts Superior Court. The civil complaint contained the same allegations, and an additional claim for retaliation in violation of the MA Paid Family Medical Leave Act and direct claims against the supervisor for aiding and abetting discrimination and intentional interference with contractual relations.

Disposition

The case was settled during private mediation before significant discovery was completed in the case. There was a concern that interactions between the claimant and her supervisor, especially after the initial MCAD Charge was filed, could support a claim for retaliatory conduct that would preclude dismissal via summary judgment and would likely result in a lengthy and contentious trial. The claimant’s allegations would likely have been supported by evidence that the supervisor ceased direct interaction with the claimant to avoid potential conflict and drafted a performance evaluation containing remarks and comments that, if interpreted as referencing the discrimination claim, could have been viewed as retaliatory conduct.

Discussion Questions

1. When does persistent inquiry by an employee about colleagues’ pay cross into protected activity under anti-discrimination laws?
2. Can a previously positive working relationship influence the interpretation of retaliatory actions?
3. How should past mentorship factor into evaluating claims of discrimination?
4. How can organizations navigate the tension between performance management and the risk of perceived retaliation?