Brown v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc. (Summary)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

Brown v. Cooley Dickinson Hosp., Inc.
No. 13-P-1057 (Mass. App. Ct. July 3, 2014)

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed a trial court’s decision to deny a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and award compensatory and punitive damages for sexual harassment and retaliation claims against a Hospital.

A nurse, who was a former employee (“Nurse”), brought claims against the Hospital for sexual harassment stemming from sexual advances and physical conduct of a sexual nature by a physician after the Nurse rejected the physician’s request for a date. The Nurse was subject to invasion of her personal space and unwelcome touching by the physician for months, despite her complaints to the Hospital. Subsequently, the Nurse was terminated a short time after she filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The Hospital claimed that the Nurse was terminated for deviating from standards of good nursing practice and for failing to acknowledge mistakes in the care of a patient.

The court found that while the unwelcome conduct by the physician was not overwhelming, it was enough to substantiate claims of sexual harassment. The court also upheld the jury’s verdict that the Nurse’s termination was due to retaliation. Conflicting evidence existed regarding whether the Nurse was fired due to her complaint of sexual harassment or poor work performance. However, the jury verdict was not unsupported, as the jury was entitled to believe the Nurse’s theory of the termination rather than the Hospital’s.

Additionally, the court affirmed the jury’s determination that sufficient evidence existed to support the award for punitive damages. Because the Hospital did not act on the Nurse’s complaints, but instead made her continue to work with her harasser for months, the conduct was deemed harmful enough for the jury to award punitive damages. It was also alleged in trial that positive evaluations existed for the Nurse, but were taken out of her file to bolster the Hospital’s claims that she was terminated due to poor performance. The court noted that this inference may have added to the jury’s award of punitive damages.