IADC member Christopher P. Flanagan, a Partner in Wilson Elser's Boston office, obtained summary judgment on behalf of the defendant, an insurance brokerage firm that allegedly discriminated against the plaintiff, a former female employee, on the basis of her gender. She also claimed that the defendant retaliated against her for reporting the alleged discrimination by terminating her employment. All claims against Wilson Elser's client were dismissed.
In her gender discrimination claim, the plaintiff alleged that her brokerage firm "created a hostile work environment" and "subjected [her] to disparate treatment because of her gender, which [was] severe, pervasive, and offensive," and in violation of Massachusetts' unlawful discrimination statute. She specifically alleged that female employees were treated differently than male employees by being excluded from social gatherings where brokers discussed and conducted business. She also alleged that the defendant required her to work more hours and perform more job responsibilities than male employees, who were paid "significantly more" than she, as that the defendant was aware and did nothing to rectify male employees being "abusive and insulting to women" and treating female support staff inappropriately.
The Court agreed with Mr. Flanagan's argument for summary judgment that the plaintiff could not demonstrate the disparate treatment, hostile environment, or discriminatory animus elements to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiff's allegations of disparate treatment were not supported by either direct or indirect evidence. The Court found that, in fact, female employees, including the plaintiff, were invited to and attended social gatherings, and those planned after work were often spontaneous and the plaintiff's unconventional work hours prohibited her from being able to attend.
The Court also held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was treated differently from any "similarly situated" comparators, who were not members of her protected class. The Court first found that the plaintiff could not establish that those to whom she compared herself, the brokers, were "similar situated," in all relevant aspects, including performance, qualification and conduct, as she did not have a broker's license nor experience producing and negotiating insurance. The Court further found that the allegations of hostile work environment were not supported by the evidence.
Regarding the retaliation claim, the Court found that the plaintiff met her burden of establishing that she addressed her concerns with her employer, but that the defendant satisfied its burden by citing the plaintiff's deteriorating job performance and its impact on the company in these dire financial times as the reasons for her termination. Additionally, the Court found no evidence to support the alleged retaliation.
The plaintiff did not appeal; hence the case has concluded.