Packard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Exec. Office of Pub. Safety
| Decision Date | 28 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-11782-GAO |
| Parties | CHRISTINE H. PACKARD, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and DONALD R. BOYCE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
O'TOOLE, D.J.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 22) was referred to the magistrate judge for hearing and a report and recommendation. After hearing, the magistrate judge filed a report recommending that the motion be granted in some respects and denied in others. The plaintiff has timely objected to three rulings recommended by the magistrate judge. No objection has been made by the defendants.
After careful review of the objections and the relevant underlying submissions, including the magistrate judge's report, I find the objections to be without merit and I ADOPT the report and its recommendations.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Packard's claim of hostile workenvironment is dismissed, but her remaining claims of sex discrimination and retaliation set forth in Counts I and III shall proceed to trial; her claim that her prescriptive right under the FMLA against termination is dismissed, but her claim in Count II that the defendants violated the FMLA by refusing to consider her for, or allowing her to apply for, the new Associate Director position shall proceed to trial; her claim against defendant Boyce for intentional interference (Count IV) shall proceed to trial; and her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V) against Boyce shall be dismissed. It is SO ORDERED.
v.
The plaintiff Christine H. Packard ("Packard") was employed by the defendant Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency ("MEMA"), a department within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Public Safety. This action arises out of MEMA's termination of Packard's employment while she was out on maternity leave authorized under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., and MEMA's failure to offer her a new position. The defendant Don R. Boyce ("Boyce") was the Director of MEMA and made the termination decision.
The defendants contend that plaintiffs position was eliminated as part of a reorganization. Plaintiff challenges that explanation and contends that, in any event, she should have been offered a position in the allegedly reorganized agency. By her complaint, Packard alleges that MEMA subjected her to sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. (Count I), that MEMA and Boyce, by such conduct, violated the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15IB (Count III), that MEMA terminated her employment and failed to offer her the new position in violation of the FMLA (Count II), that Boyce intentionally interfered with her employment contract (Count IV), and that Boyce is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V).
This matter is presently before the court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by which the defendants are seeking judgment in their favor on all counts of the complaint. (Docket No. 22). For the reasons detailed herein, this court recommends to the District Judge to whom this case is assigned that the motion be ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, this court recommends that Packard's claim of hostile work environment be dismissed, but that her remaining claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in Counts I and III proceed to trial; that Packard's claim that her termination violated the FMLA be dismissed, but that her claim in Count II that the defendants violated the FMLA by refusing to consider her for, or allowing her to apply for, the new Associate Director position proceed to trial; that her claim againstBoyce for intentional interference (Count IV) proceed to trial; and that her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V) against Boyce be dismissed.
The following material facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. The facts are viewed in favor of the plaintiff, the non-moving party. See Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff, Christine H. Packard ("Packard"), was hired as MEMA's Preparedness Branch Chief on October 25, 2004, an Administrator VII position. (DF ¶ 1; PF ¶ 1). In that capacity, she was in charge of the agency's Nuclear Preparedness, Training, Government Preparedness, and Planning Departments. (DF ¶ 2). Packard was one of three Branch Chiefs at the time — the other branches being Response and Recovery and Administration and Finance. (DF ¶ l).
On April 1, 2005, Packard went out on a MEMA-approved FMLA maternity leave, and she returned on August 1, 2005. (DF 3). She continued in her position as Preparedness Branch Chief, and continued to receive "highly effective" and "exceptional" overall performance ratings on her annual performance evaluations. (PF ¶ 13).
In or about January 2007, Packard's immediate supervisor, Christine McCombs, left the agency and Ken McBride ("McBride") became the Acting Director of MEMA. (PF ¶ 12). On or about August 8, 2007, Packard requested, in writing, FMLA leave for the birth of a child. (PF ¶ 14). The leave was approved by Acting Director McBride for the period from December 31, 2007 to June 28, 2008. (PF ¶ 15). Meanwhile, on September 2, 2007, defendant Donald R. Boyce ("Boyce") was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick as the Director of MEMA. (DF ¶ 4; PF ¶ 17).
According to the defendants, Boyce, in consultation with others, decided to reorganize the agency to change its focus from grants and fiscal oversight of federal funds to mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. (DF ¶ 5). In Boyce's view, this required a reorganization of the agency. (Id.). For her part, Packard contends that there was no need to reorganize or change the agency's focus, as MEMA was already an operational agency with a focus on mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery prior to Boyce's employment. (PF ¶ 18). Nevertheless, as detailed below, the undisputed facts establish that there was a reorganization of the agency while Packard was on leave.
According to Packard, during one of her initial meetings with Boyce prior to her leave, she informed him that she was pregnant. (PF ¶ 19). Boyce indicated that he was aware of her "condition." (Id.). Packard contends that following the meeting, Boyce continued to work closely with her male counterparts, but not with her. (PF ¶¶ 20-21). According to Packard, Boyce ignored her, and his conduct was noted by at least McBride, who was serving as Boyce's Chief of Staff. (PF ¶ 22-23).
On or about December 28, 2007, just a few days before Packard left for maternity leave, Boyce had a meeting with the Branch Chiefs and other senior staff. (DF ¶ 6; PF ¶ 24). According to Boyce, at the meeting he formally announced his intention to reorganize MEMA, something which had previously been discussed only on an informal basis. (DF ¶ 6). According to Packard, Boyce concluded the meeting by thanking Packard for all her years of public service and contributions to MEMA, prompting her to respond in no uncertain terms that she would be returning to her position at the end of her maternity leave. (PF ¶¶ 25-26). On December 31, 2007, Packard left for her maternity leave, with an expected return date of June 30, 2008. (DF ¶ 7). As he had done during her previous maternity leave, McBride assumed Packard's responsibilities. (PF ¶ 28).
Packard contacted Boyce in early February 2008, confirming her intention to return to work. (PF ¶ 29; DF ¶ 9). According to Packard, "Boyce stated that he 'respected' the reasons for her leave, but that it was for 'a long time' and that he would not wait to 'make changes.'" (PF ¶ 29). During this conversation, Boyce also stated to Packard that he was anxious for her to return to MEMA. (Id.). According to the defendants, "Boyce cautioned her that her leave was for 'a long time' and reorganization would not await the return of any one individual." (DF ¶ 9). Packard denies that Boyce ever told her that the reorganization would not await the return of any one individual. (PF ¶ 37).
On February 15, 2008, Kevin Beauregard, the Administration and Finance Branch Chief, resigned. (PF ¶ 31). There is evidence that his resignation was a mutual decision,and was not motivated by the planned restructuring. (PF ¶¶ 30-32). On February 24, 2008, John Tommaney resigned as Response and Recovery Branch Chief, which resulted in the elimination of this position as well. (DF ¶ 10). Again, according to Packard, this was a voluntary termination, and Tommaney left to take another position. (PF ¶¶ 34-36). Therefore, his departure was not motivated by the planned restructuring. (Id.). On March 25, 2008, Boyce eliminated the Chief of Staff position held by McBride. (DF ¶ 11). According to Packard, McBride had intended to resign before any alleged restructuring, and had told that to Boyce. (PF ¶ 33).
On March 26, 2008, Boyce unveiled a new organizational structure having a Deputy Director of Field Services, an Associate Director for Administration and Finance, and an Associate Director of Technical and Support Services in lieu of the Chief of Staff and three Branch Chief positions. (DF ¶ 15). McBride was temporarily appointed as the Acting Associate Director of Technical and Support Services. (DF ¶ 11). According to the defendants, McBride...
To continue reading
Request your trial