Harassment Cases

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner v. Naiel NASSAR. No. 12-484. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 24, 2013. Decided June 24, 2013. Daryl L. Joseffer, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Brian P. Lauten, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Melissa Arbus Sherry, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the respondent. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Daniel T. Hodge, First Assistant Attorney General, David C. Mattax, Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation James "Beau" Eccles, Division Chief-General Litigation, Office of the Attorney General, Daryl L. Joseffer, Counsel of Record, Carolyn M. Sweeney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, Michael W. Johnston, Merritt E. McAlister, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Lars Hagen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Myrna Salinas Baumann, King & Spalding LLP, Austin, TX, for Petitioner. Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Charla Aldous, Brent Walker, Aldous Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Brian P. Lauten, Counsel of Record, Sawicki & Lauten, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. When the law grants persons the right to compensation for injury from wrongful conduct, there must be some demonstrated connection, some link, between the injury sustained and the wrong alleged. The requisite relation between prohibited conduct and compensable injury is governed by the principles of causation, a subject most often arising in elaborating the law of torts. This case requires the Court to define those rules in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides remedies to employees for injuries related to discriminatory conduct and associated wrongs by employers. Title VII is central to the federal policy of prohibiting wrongful discrimination in the Nation's workplaces and in all sectors of economic endeavor. This opinion discusses the causation rules for two categories of wrongful employer conduct prohibited by Title VII. The first type is called, for purposes of this opinion, status-based discrimination. The term is used here to refer to basic workplace protection such as prohibitions against employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in hiring, firing, salary structure, promotion and the like. See § 2000e-2(a). The second type of conduct is employer retaliation on account of an employee's having opposed, complained of, or sought remedies for, unlawful workplace discrimination. See § 2000e-3(a). An employee who alleges status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show that the causal link between injury and wrong is so close that the injury would not have occurred but for the act. So-called but-for causation is not the test. It suffices instead to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer's motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer's decision. This principle is the result of an earlier case from this Court, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), and an ensuing statutory amendment by Congress that codified in part and abrogated in part the holding in Price Waterhouse, see §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). The question the Court must answer here is whether that lessened causation standard is applicable to claims of unlawful employer retaliation under § 2000e-3(a). Although the Court has not addressed the question of the causation showing required to establish liability for a Title VII retaliation claim, it has addressed the issue of causation in general in a case involving employer discrimination under a separate but related statute, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In Gross, the Court concluded that the ADEA requires proof that the prohibited criterion was the but-for cause of the prohibited conduct. The holding and analysis of that decision are instructive here. I Petitioner, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (University), is an academic institution within the University of Texas system. The University specializes in medical education for aspiring physicians, health professionals, and scientists. Over the years, the University has affiliated itself with a number of healthcare facilities including, as relevant in this case, Parkland Memorial Hospital (Hospital). As provided in its affiliation agreement with the University, the Hospital permits the University's students to gain clinical experience working in its facilities. The agreement also requires the Hospital to offer empty staff physician posts to the University's faculty members, see App. 361-362, 366, and, accordingly, most of the staff physician positions at the Hospital are filled by those faculty members. Respondent is a medical doctor of Middle Eastern descent who specializes in internal medicine and infectious diseases. In 1995, he was hired to work both as a member of the University's faculty and a staff physician at the Hospital. He left both positions in 1998 for additional medical education and then returned in 2001 as an assistant professor at the University and, once again, as a physician at the Hospital. In 2004, Dr. Beth Levine was hired as the University's Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine. In that position Levine became respondent's ultimate (though not direct) superior. Respondent alleged that Levine was biased against him on account of his religion and ethnic heritage, a bias manifested by undeserved scrutiny of his billing practices and productivity, as well as comments that " 'Middle Easterners are lazy.' " 674 F.3d 448, 450 (C.A.5 2012). On different occasions during his employment, respondent met with Dr. Gregory Fitz, the University's Chair of Internal Medicine and Levine's supervisor, to complain about Levine's alleged harassment. Despite obtaining a promotion with Levine's assistance in 2006, respondent continued to believe that she was biased against him. So he tried to arrange to continue working at the Hospital without also being on the University's faculty. After preliminary negotiations with the Hospital suggested this might be possible, respondent resigned his teaching post in July 2006 and sent a letter to Dr. Fitz (among others), in which he stated that the reason for his departure was harassment by Levine. That harassment, he asserted, " 'stems from ... religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims.' " Id., at 451. After reading that letter, Dr. Fitz expressed consternation at respondent's accusations, saying that Levine had been "publicly humiliated by th[e] letter" and that it was "very important that she be publicly exonerated." App. 41. Meanwhile, the Hospital had offered respondent a job as a staff physician, as it had indicated it would. On learning of that offer, Dr. Fitz protested to the Hospital, asserting that the offer was inconsistent with the affiliation agreement's requirement that all staff physicians also be members of the University faculty. The Hospital then withdrew its offer. After exhausting his administrative remedies, respondent filed this Title VII suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He alleged two discrete violations of Title VII. The first was a status-based discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a). Respondent alleged that Dr. Levine's racially and religiously motivated harassment had resulted in his constructive discharge from the University. Respondent's second claim was that Dr. Fitz's efforts to prevent the Hospital from hiring him were in retaliation for complaining about Dr. Levine's harassment, in violation of § 2000e-3(a). 674 F.3d, at 452. The jury found for respondent on both claims. It awarded him over $400,000 in backpay and more than $3 million in compensatory damages. The District Court later reduced the compensatory damages award to $300,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court first concluded that respondent had submitted insufficient evidence in support of his constructive-discharge claim, so it vacated that portion of the jury's verdict. The court affirmed as to the retaliation finding, however, on the theory that retaliation claims brought under § 2000e-3(a) -like claims of status-based discrimination under § 2000e-2(a) -require only a showing that retaliation was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action, rather than its but-for cause. See id., at 454, n. 16 (citing Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320, 330 (C.A.5 2010) ). It further held that the evidence supported a finding that Dr. Fitz was motivated, at least in part, to retaliate against respondent for his complaints against Levine. The Court of Appeals then remanded for a redetermination of damages in light of its decision to vacate the constructive-discharge verdict. Four judges dissented from the court's decision not to rehear the case en banc, arguing that the Circuit's application of the motivating-factor standard to retaliation cases was "an erroneous interpretation of [Title VII] and controlling caselaw" and should be overruled en banc. 688 F.3d 211, 213-214 (C.A.5 2012) (Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Certiorari was granted. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 978, 184 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013). II A This case requires the Court to define the proper standard of causation for Title VII retaliation claims. Causation in fact-i.e., proof that the defendant's conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff's injury-is a standard requirement of any tort claim, see Restatement of Torts § 9 (1934) (definition of "legal cause"); § 431, Comment a (same); § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of physical harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); § 281(c) (negligence). This includes federal statutory claims of workplace discrimination. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (In intentional-discrimination cases, "liability depends on whether the protected trait" "actually motivated the employer's decision" and "had a determinative influence on the outcome"); Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (explaining that the "simple test" for determining a discriminatory employment practice is "whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the usual course, this standard requires the plaintiff to show "that the harm would not have occurred" in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct. Restatement of Torts § 431, Comment a (negligence); § 432(1), and Comment a (same); see § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of bodily harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 27, and Comment b (2010) (noting the existence of an exception for cases where an injured party can prove the existence of multiple, independently sufficient factual causes, but observing that "cases invoking the concept are rare"). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432(1) (1963 and 1964) (negligence claims); § 870, Comment l (intentional injury to another); cf. § 435a, and Comment a (legal cause for intentional harm). It is thus textbook tort law that an action "is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred without it." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984). This, then, is the background against which Congress legislated in enacting Title VII, and these are the default rules it is presumed to have incorporated, absent an indication to the contrary in the statute itself. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003) ; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-258, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). B Since the statute's passage in 1964, it has prohibited employers from discriminating against their employees on any of seven specified criteria. Five of them-race, color, religion, sex, and national origin-are personal characteristics and are set forth in § 2000e-2. (As noted at the outset, discrimination based on these five characteristics is called status-based discrimination in this opinion.) And then there is a point of great import for this case: The two remaining categories of wrongful employer conduct-the employee's opposition to employment discrimination, and the employee's submission of or support for a complaint that alleges employment discrimination-are not wrongs based on personal traits but rather types of protected employee conduct. These latter two categories are covered by a separate, subsequent section of Title VII, § 2000e-3(a). Under the status-based discrimination provision, it is an "unlawful employment practice" for an employer "to discriminate against any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." § 2000e-2(a). In its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse, the Court sought to explain the causation standard imposed by this language. It addressed in particular what it means for an action to be taken "because of" an individual's race, religion, or nationality. Although no opinion in that case commanded a majority, six Justices did agree that a plaintiff could prevail on a claim of status-based discrimination if he or she could show that one of the prohibited traits was a "motivating" or "substantial" factor in the employer's decision. 490 U.S., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 276, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). If the plaintiff made that showing, the burden of persuasion would shift to the employer, which could escape liability if it could prove that it would have taken the same employment action in the absence of all discriminatory animus. Id., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259-260, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 276-277, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). In other words, the employer had to show that a discriminatory motive was not the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. Two years later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071. This statute (which had many other provisions) codified the burden-shifting and lessened-causation framework of Price Waterhouse in part but also rejected it to a substantial degree. The legislation first added a new subsection to the end of § 2000e-2, i.e., Title VII's principal ban on status-based discrimination. See § 107(a), 105 Stat. 1075. The new provision, § 2000e-2(m), states: "[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." This, of course, is a lessened causation standard. The 1991 Act also abrogated a portion of Price Waterhouse 's framework by removing the employer's ability to defeat liability once a plaintiff proved the existence of an impermissible motivating factor. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In its place, Congress enacted § 2000e-5(g)(2), which provides: "(B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and [the employer] demonstrates that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court- "(i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief ... and [limited] attorney's fees and costs ...; and "(ii) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment...." So, in short, the 1991 Act substituted a new burden-shifting framework for the one endorsed by Price Waterhouse . Under that new regime, a plaintiff could obtain declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and some forms of injunctive relief based solely on proof that race, color, religion, sex, or nationality was a motivating factor in the employment action; but the employer's proof that it would still have taken the same employment action would save it from monetary damages and a reinstatement order. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343; see also id., at 175, n. 2, 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343. After Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, considerable time elapsed before the Court returned again to the meaning of "because" and the problem of causation. This time it arose in the context of a different, yet similar statute, the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). See Gross, supra . Much like the Title VII statute in Price Waterhouse, the relevant portion of the ADEA provided that " '[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.' " 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting § 623(a)(1) ; emphasis and ellipsis in original). Concentrating first and foremost on the meaning of the phrase " 'because of ... age,' " the Court in Gross explained that the ordinary meaning of " 'because of' " is " 'by reason of' " or " 'on account of.' " Id., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1966); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 746 (1933); The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 132 (1966); emphasis in original). Thus, the "requirement that an employer took adverse action 'because of' age [meant] that age was the 'reason' that the employer decided to act," or, in other words, that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343. See also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 63-64, and n. 14, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (noting that "because of" means "based on" and that " 'based on' indicates a but-for causal relationship"); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 265-266, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) (equating "by reason of" with " 'but for' cause"). In the course of approving this construction, Gross declined to adopt the interpretation endorsed by the plurality and concurring opinions in Price Waterhouse . Noting that "the ADEA must be 'read ... the way Congress wrote it,' " 557 U.S., at 179, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 102, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008) ), the Court concluded that "the textual differences between Title VII and the ADEA" "prevent[ed] us from applying Price Waterhouse ... to federal age discrimination claims," 557 U.S., at 175, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In particular, the Court stressed the congressional choice not to add a provision like § 2000e-2(m) to the ADEA despite making numerous other changes to the latter statute in the 1991 Act. Id., at 174-175, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) ); 557 U.S., at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 270, 129 S.Ct. 1456, 173 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) ). Finally, the Court in Gross held that it would not be proper to read Price Waterhouse as announcing a rule that applied to both statutes, despite their similar wording and near-contemporaneous enactment. 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. This different reading was necessary, the Court concluded, because Congress' 1991 amendments to Title VII

LASHANDA SHAW, Plaintiff v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendants No. COA12-338 Filed 15 January 2013 Jurisdiction — subject matter — negligent infliction of emotional distress — Workers’ Compensation Act — exclusivity provisions The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim caused by defendant’s willful or wanton negligence because the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act gives the Industrial Commission exclusive jurisdiction over this type of claim. Plaintiff’s claim fell within the purview of the Worker’s Compensation Act but was not enough to sustain a Woodson claim and thereby qualify as an exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 8 April 2011 by Judge Mary Ann Tally in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 November 2012. Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harold L. Kennedy, III and Harvey L. Kennedy, for plaintiff-appellee. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P, by Julia C. Ambrose, John W. Ormand, III and Patricia W. Goodson, for defendant-appellant. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., for Amicus Curiae North Carolina Chamber. STROUD, Judge. This case presents in a unique procedural posture, with defendant’s appeal from a $450,000,00 jury award to plaintiff for her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we agree and vacate the judgment of the trial court. I. Background This case is in an unusual procedural posture because it comes to us with facts that have already been determined by a jury. Because the only issue addressed by this Court is subject matter jurisdiction, we recite just the background we deem pertinent for an understanding of the jurisdictional issue before us. In 2007, defendant hired plaintiff “as an Area Manager.” During the course of plaintiff’s employment, she complained that she was being harassed by her male supervisor. Plaintiff’s supervisor’s behavior toward plaintiff was obnoxious and rude; the harassment was verbal and involved some forms of intimidation but did not involve anything of a sexual nature nor did it involve any physical contact with plaintiff. Despite plaintiff’s complaints to the appropriate personnel, plaintiff’s supervisor remained in his position, where he continued to harass her, and eventually, defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment. On 13 January 2010, plaintiff filed a verified amended complaint claiming (1) wrongful discharge, (2) violation of Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”), (3) tortious interference with contractual rights, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). On or about 27 August 2010, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her second claim, the REDA claim. On 8 November 2010, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On 21 December 2010, the trial court filed an order regarding defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s third and fourth claims for tortious interference with contractual rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, only plaintiff’s first and fifth claims for wrongful discharge and NIED remained at the time of trial. The allegations central to both plaintiff’s wrongful discharge and NIED claims were that plaintiff complained to defendant about the harassment by her supervisor; defendant negligently handled plaintiff’s complaint about the harassment; and defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff’s emotional distress and eventually led to her wrongful discharge. Several specific issues were submitted to the jury, and on appeal neither party challenges these issues as submitted to the jury. After a lengthy trial, the jury entered the following verdict: ISSUE ONE: Did the defendant intentionally discriminate against the plaintiff because of her race or sex or both when the defendant fired the plaintiff? [The jury answered “No[.]”] ISSUE TWO: Did the defendant retaliate against the plaintiff by firing her for her making a complaint of discrimination based upon her race or sex or both? [The jury answered “Yes[.]”] ISSUE THREE: Would the defendant have terminated the plaintiff in the absence of race or sex discrimination and/or retaliation for her complaints of discrimination? YOU WILL ANSWER THIS ISSUE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED ISSUES 1 OR 2 “YES[”] IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF. [The jury answered “Yes[.]”] ISSUE FOUR: Did the plaintiff suffer severe emotional distress as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant? [The jury answered “Yes[.]”] ISSUE FIVE: What amount of damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? YOU ARE TO ANSWER THIS ISSUE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED ISSUES 1 OR 2 “YES” IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND ANSWERED ISSUE 3 “NO” OR IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED ISSUE 4 IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF. [The jury answered “$450,000.00[.]”] The jury verdict sheet required that the jury answer Issue Five only in either of two scenarios: (1) “IF [IT HAD] ANSWERED ISSUES 1 OR 2 ‘YES’ IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND ANSWERED ISSUE 3 ‘NO’ ” or (2) “IF [IT HAD] ANSWERED ISSUE 4 IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.” The jury answered Issue Two “Yes[,]” but answered Issue Three “No[.]” Accordingly, the jury could not award plaintiff a verdict based upon the first two issues. The jury answered Issue Four “Yes[,]” and thus the award of $450,000.00 was based solely upon Issue Four regarding plaintiff’s “severe emotional distress as a proximate result of the negligence of defendant.” In summary, the jury did not award plaintiff any damages for her wrongful discharge claim but only for her NIED claim. The jury then considered the issue of punitive damages. The jury entered the following verdict as to punitive damages: ISSUE ONE: IS THE DFENDANT LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? [The jury answered “Yes[.]”] ISSUE TWO: WHAT AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, IF ANY, DOES THE JURY IN ITS DISCRETION AWARD TO THE PLAINTIFF? (YOU ARE TO ANSWER THIS ISSUE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE FIRST “YES” IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF) [The jury answered “None[.]”[ On 8 April 2011, the trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict sheets and awarded plaintiff compensatory damages of $450,000.00. Defendant appeals. II. Jurisdiction Defendant argues that “the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NIED claim, which is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.” (Original in all caps.) “Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal.” McKoy v. McKoy, 202 N.C. App. 509, 511, 689 S.E.2d 590, 592 (2010). It is important to note that the only issue on appeal is the trial court’s jurisdiction as to plaintiff’s NIED claim, and thus we need not consider any of plaintiff’s other claims. Furthermore, the relevant facts have already been determined by the jury, so our analysis is based upon the jury’s verdict and not the allegations or evidence of either party. Here, the jury determined that “plaintiff suffered] severe emotional distress as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant” and awarded plaintiff $450,000.00 as compensation for that claim and that claim only. The jury further determined that defendant is “liable to the plaintiff for punitive damages for negligent infliction of severe emotional distress” but awarded no damages. (Original in all caps.) However, a finding of liability for punitive damages requires that the plaintiff prove “that the defendant is liable for compensatory damages and that one of the following aggravating factors was present and was related to the injury for which compensatory damages were awarded: (1) Fraud. (2) Malice. (3) Willful or wanton conduct.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-I5(a) (2007). The jury was properly instructed on the requirements for a finding of liability for punitive damages as to willful or wanton conduct. Plaintiff proved “that the defendant [was] liable for compensatory damages” as is shown by the jury’s compensatory damages award of $450,000.00. Accordingly, the issue before us is whether the trial court had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim for NEID caused by defendant’s willful or wanton negligence. A. Willful and/or Wanton Negligence Defined Here, the jury has already made the determination that defendant’s negligence was “willful or wanton.” “Willful negligence arises from the tortfeasor’s deliberate breach of a legal duty owed to another, while wanton negligence is done of a wicked purpose or done needlessly, manifesting a reckless indifference to the rights of others.” Sloan v. Miller Building Corp., 128 N.C. App. 37, 43, 493 S.E.2d 460, 464 (1997) (citation, quotation marks, and ellipses omitted). “Wil[l]ful and wanton negligence is conduct which shows either a deliberate intention to harm, or an utter indifference to, or conscious disregard for, the rights or safety of others. Carelessness and recklessness, though more than ordinary negligence, is less than willful[l]ness or wantonness.” Siders v. Gibbs, 31 N.C. App. 481, 485, 229 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1976) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, defendant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NIED claim caused by defendant’s willful and wanton negligence because the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over this type of claim. B. The Exclusivity Provisions N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-9 provides, Every ,employer subject to the compensation provisions of this Article shall secure the payment of compensation to his employees in the manner hereinafter provided; and while such security remains in force, he or those conducting his business shall only be liable to any employee for personal injury or death by accident to the extent and in the manner herein specified. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-9 (2007). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1, provides, If the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or personal representative shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or representative as against the employer at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (2007). Thus, this Court and our Supreme Court have agreed that [t]he [Workers’ Compensation] Act provides that its remedies are the only remedies an employee has against his or her employer for claims covered by the Act. . . . Even where the complaint alleges willful and wanton negligence and prays for punitive damages, the remedies under the Act are exclusive. An employee cannot elect to pursue an alternate avenue of recovery, but is required to proceed under the Act with respect to compensable injuries. McAllister v. Cone Mills Corp., 88 N.C. App. 577, 580, 364 S.E.2d 186, 188 (1988) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see Freeman v. SCM Corporation, 311 N.C. 294, 295-96, 316 S.E.2d 81, 82 (1984) (The “plaintiff filed this action, alleging that her injuries were caused by the gross, willful and wanton negligence and by the intentional acts of defendant.... Since plaintiff was here covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act, her rights and remedies against defendant employer were determined by the Act and she was required to pursue them in the North Carolina Industrial Commission. She could not, in lieu of this avenue of recovery, institute a common law action against her employer in the civil courts of this State.” (citation omitted)). Thus, the only ways in which plaintiff might avoid the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission are (1) that her claim falls under an exception to the exclusivity provisions or (2) that her NIED claim was not “covered by the Act.” McAllister, 88 N.C. App. at 580, 364 S.E.2d at 188. We consider both of these alternatives in turn. C. Woodson v. Rowland In 1991, our Supreme Court recognized one exception to the exclusivity provisions with the seminal case of Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991). In Woodson, Mr. Thomas Sprouse was working in a trench “to lay sewer lines.” 329 N.C. at 334, 407 S.E.2d at 225. The trench should have had a trench box, but did not in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina. Id. at 335, 407 S.E.2d at 225. One foreman did not allow his men to work in the trench because of the dangers posed by the trench without a trench box. Id. Though a trench box was available on site, Mr. Sprouse’s project supervisor, among others, decided not to use it; the trench collapsed and Mr. Sprouse was buried alive. Id. at 335-36, 407 S.E.2d at 225. Mr. Sprouse died as a result of the trench collapse and plaintiff, the administrator of Mr. Sprouse’s estate, sued at the trial court but also filed a Workers’ Compensation claim to meet the filing deadline for compensation claims. In order to avoid a judicial ruling that she had elected a workers’ compensation remedy inconsistent with the civil remedies she presently seeks, plaintiff specifically requested that the Industrial Commission not hear her case until completion of th[e] action [before the trial court]. The Commission . . . complied with her request[.] Id. at 336, 407 S.E.2d at 226. The defendant requested summary judgment and prevailed at both the trial level and before this Court. Id. Upon further appeal, the question pending before the Supreme Court was “whether the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act limit[ed] plaintiff’s remedies to those provided by the Act.” Id. at 334, 407 S.E.2d at 224. The Court then engaged in a thorough analysis of statutory provisions, our case law, and the case law of other jurisdictions reasoning that [i]n Pleasant, which involved co-employee liability for recklessly operating a motor vehicle, we concluded that injury to another resulting from willful, wanton and reckless negligence should also be treated as an intentional injury for purposes of our Workers’ Compensation Act. The Pleasant Court expressly refused to consider whether the same rationale would apply to employer misconduct. Nonetheless, Pleasant equated willful, wanton and reckless misconduct with intentional injury for Workers’ Compensation purposes. The plaintiff in Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Co., 315 N.C. 500, 340 S.E.2d 295 (1986), urged us to extend the Pleasant rationale to injuries caused by an employer’s willful and wanton misconduct. The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of the deceased employee, alleged in part that the decedent died as a result of severe burns and other injuries caused by an explosion and fire in the. employer’s plant. On the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s forecast of evidence, which included the allegations of the complaint, tended to show as follows: the employer utilized ignitable concentrations of flammable gasses and volatile flammable liquids at its plant, violated OSHANC regulations in the use of these substances, covered meters and turned off alarms designed to detect and warn of dangerous levels of explosive gasses and vapors — all of which resulted in the explosion and fire which caused the employee’s death. A majority of this Court in Barrino refused to extend the Pleasant rationale to employer conduct, but only two of the four majority justices expressed the view that the plaintiff’s injuries were solely by accident and that the remedies provided by the Act were exclusive. These two justices relied in part on Freeman v. SCM Corporation, 311 N.C. 294, 316 S.E.2d 81 (1984), a per curiam opinion which concluded that a complaint alleging injuries caused by the willful and wanton negligence of an employer should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure because exclusive jurisdiction rested under the Workers’ Compensation Act with the Industrial Commission. The other two justices in the Barrino majority concurred on the ground that the plaintiff, having accepted workers’ compensation benefits, was thereby barred from bringing a civil suit. The three remaining justices dissented on the ground that the plaintiff’s forecast of evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant-employer’s conduct embodies a degree of culpability beyond negligence so as to allow the plaintiff to maintain a civil action. Believing the plaintiff’s forecast of evidence was sufficient to survive summary judgment on the question of whether the employer was guilty of an intentional tort, the Barrino dissenters said: As Prosser states: Intent is broader than a desire to bring about physical results. It must extend not only to those consequences which are desired, but also to those which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow from what he does. The death of Lora Ann Barrino the employee was, at the very least, substantially certain to occur given defendants’ deliberate failure to observe even basic safety laws. As discussed in a subsequent portion of this opinion, the dissenters also concluded that the plaintiff was not put to an election of remedies. They thus would have allowed the plaintiff’s common law intentional tort claim to proceed to trial on the theory that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct knowing it was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death. They would also have allowed the plaintiff to pursue both a workers’ compensation claim and a civil action. Today we adopt the views of the Barrino dissent. We hold that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct, that employee, or the personal representative of the estate in case of death, may pursue a civil action against the employer. Such misconduct is tantamount to an intentional tort, and civil actions based thereon are not barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. Because, as also discussed in a subsequent portion of this opinion, the injury or death caused by such misconduct is nonetheless the result of an accident under the Act, workers’ compensation claims may also be pursued. There may, however, only be one recovery. We believe this holding conforms with general legal principles and is true to the legislative intent when considered in light of the Act’s underlying purposes. Id. at 339-41, 407 S.E.2d at 227-28 (emphasis added) (citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted). The Court further explained, Our holding is consistent with general concepts of tort liability outside the workers’ compensation context. The gradations of tortious conduct can best be understood as a continuum. The most aggravated conduct is where the actor actually intends the probable consequences of his conduct. One who intentionally engages in conduct knowing that particular results are substantially certain to follow also intends the results for purposes of tort liability. Intent is broader than a desire to bring about physical results. It extends not only to those consequences which are desired, but also to those which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow from what the actor does. This is the doctrine of constructive intent. As the probability that a certain consequence will follow decreases, and becomes less than substantially certain, the actor’s conduct loses the character of intent, and becomes mere recklessness. As the probability decreases further, and amounts only to a risk that the resul

Maria Lahbibi Ryan vs. Holie Donut, Inc. No. 11-P-1403. Suffolk. March 8, 2012. - October 15, 2012. Present: Katzmann, Sikora, & Agnes, JJ. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. Employment, Retaliation, Sexual harassment, Termination. Anti-Discrimination Law, Sex, Termination of employment. Administrative Law, Exhaustion of remedies. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Superior Court, Jurisdiction. In a civil action brought by a plaintiff against her employer alleging common-law wrongful termination in violation of a public policy supporting the report of unlawful conduct to law enforcement authorities (here, that she had been sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by a customer of her employer who was an on-duty police officer), the Superior Court judge properly granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, where the claim alleged, in substance, retaliation for the plaintiff’s opposition to her employer’s tolerance of a sexually hostile work environment, within the operation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4(16A), and therefore fell within the statutory jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, to which the plaintiff had failed to submit an administrative complaint within 300 days of her termination, as required by G. L. c. 151B, § 5. [635-641] Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 2, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by Geraldine S. Hines, J. Michael A. West for the plaintiff. Nancy A. Serventi for the defendant. Sikora, J. By a single-count complaint for damages, Maria Lahbibi Ryan alleged that the defendant, Holie Donut, Inc. (Ho-lie Donut), had fired her because she had complained to Holie Donut and to law enforcement authorities about a pattern of sexual harassment committed at her workplace by a local police officer. She claimed that the retaliatory discharge violated public policy supporting the report of unlawful conduct to authorities and constituted tortious wrongful termination. She appeals from a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). A judge of the Superior Court concluded that, in substance, Ryan’s complaint alleged a claim of employer retaliation for her opposition to Holie Donut’s tolerance of a sexually hostile work environment, as prohibited by the antidiscrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, § 4(4) (forbidding retaliation) and 4(16A) (forbidding sexually hostile work environment). The judge reasoned that the genuine character of the claim had required submission of an administrative complaint to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) within 300 days of the alleged misconduct as a statutory prerequisite for pursuit of any subsequent remedies, and that omission of the mandatory administrative complaint compelled dismissal of Ryan’s common-law action. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of dismissal. Background. Because we are reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.R 12(b)(6), we credit hypothetically the allegations of the complaint. See Hobson v. McLean Hosp. Corp., 402 Mass. 413, 415 (1988). In 2003, Ryan began employment with Holie Donut, the holder of a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise shop in the city of Chelsea. During the course of her work at the shop, Chelsea police Officer Michael Morabito became a regular customer. The shop was located at 478 Broadway; Officer Mora-bito’s station house was located at 500 Broadway. When he patronized the store, Morabito was in uniform and on duty. According to the complaint, in 2006 Morabito began a course of conduct in which he (1) made sexually suggestive comments to Ryan, (2) made them in the presence of customers and other employees, (3) made sexual propositions to her, (4) made “sexually intimidating” comments to her, and (5) on one or more occasions “touch[ed] and sexually assaulted] ” her. The management and ownership of Holie Donut were aware of this behavior. Nonetheless, they did not report his conduct to any authorities and did not bar or limit his access to the shop. In early September of 2007, Ryan informed Holie Donut that she intended to report Morabito’s conduct to law enforcement authorities. The management discouraged that course and indicated that any “legal steps” would create “problems” for Holie Donut and Ryan. Also during the first half of that month, Morabito and at least one other police officer discouraged Ryan from taking any action. Ryan nevertheless “initiated steps to report the conduct” and “steps to protect herself” (unspecified in the complaint). Holie Donut then discharged her. Ryan brought the present common-law action for wrongful termination on September 2, 2010, almost three years later. Ho-lie Donut moved successfully for dismissal upon the ground that Ryan had failed to submit a prerequisite timely administrative complaint. This appeal ensued. Analysis. 1. Standard of review. Review of the allowance of a rule 12(b)(6) motion proceeds de nova. See Harhen v. Brown, 431 Mass. 838, 845 (2000); Housman v. LBM Financial, LLC, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 213, 216 (2011). To assess the legal sufficiency of the complaint, we take as true all factual allegations and any reasonable inferences from those allegations. See Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011); Greenleaf Arms Realty Trust I, LLC v. New Boston Fund, Inc., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 282, 288 (2012). The factual allegations, as a matter of both plausibility and law, must support an entitlement to relief. See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008). Finally, the presence of allegations or information constituting a conclusive affirmative defense can spell the demise of a complaint. See, e.g., Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 637-638 (1990) (application of issue preclusion); Daniel v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 418 Mass. 721, 722 (1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Babco Indus., Inc. v. New England Merchants Natl. Bank, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 929, 929 (1978) (applicability of statute of limitations). 2. Common-law claim of wrongful termination. Ryan characterizes her cause of action not as a specific allegation of discrimination, but rather as a generic claim of wrongful discharge beyond the coverage of the antidiscrimination provisions of G. L. c. 151B, § 4(4) and 4(16A). She describes Holie Donut’s dismissal of her as “retaliation for reporting a crime to law enforcement authorities, consisting of an assault to her person, perpetrated by an on-duty, uniformed and armed police officer while in an ‘off limits to the public’ area at the plaintiff’s place of employment.” To the same effect, she argues that “[germinating an employee for reporting a crime is not a practice that is expressly forbidden by any section of [G. L.] c. 151B. Such a termination is a common law tort, without a remedy articulated in [c.] 151B.” That view would place her dismissal within the tort of wrongful termination of an at-will employee. Even if “the employer does not gain a financial advantage, an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if the discharge is contrary to public policy.” DeRose v. Putnam Mgmt. Co., 398 Mass. 205, 210 (1986) (recognizing claim under Massachusetts common law). The public policy must be well defined, important, and preferably embodied in a textual law source. See Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555, 561 n.7 (1988); Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 472-476 (1992). A public policy violation arises, at the least, from a termination punishing an employee’s assertion of a legally guaranteed right, compliance with a legal requirement, or refusal to commit prohibited conduct. See Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 145, 149-150 (1989). See also Hobson v. McLean Hosp. Corp., 402 Mass. at 416-417 (allegations of discharge for enforcing municipal and State law standards of patient supervision constitute claim); Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 810-811 (1991) (wrongful termination can arise from circumstances in which company discharges employee for cooperation with customs officers’ investigation of employer even though employee had no legal duty to cooperate); Shea v. Emmanuel College, 425 Mass. 761, 762-763 (1997) (discharge of employee for reporting criminal wrongdoing within organization to superiors within organization would constitute actionable violation of public policy). In short, Ryan insists that the thrust of her complaint is not her discharge for reporting an experience of discriminatory sexual harassment in the workplace, but instead her discharge for reporting criminal activity (assaultive touching on one or more occasions) by an on-duty police officer to law enforcement officials; and that such a distinctive allegation falls outside the operation of G. L. c. 151B. We respect the contention that disclosure of misconduct, especially by on-duty law enforcement officers, serves a public purpose. However, two considerations defeat that argument in this instance: a realistic assessment of the complaint and the full reach of c. 15IB. 3. Allegations of the complaint. A full and balanced view of the complaint reveals a story of sexual harassment. The alleged events extended in a pattern for a year or more. They were predominantly verbal and open. “[0]ne or more” acts consisted of “touching and sexually assaulting” Ryan. The complaint does not elaborate upon the details of any physical contact or relate any contemporaneous report of it to law enforcement. It does state that at least one other police officer witnessed or knew about the misconduct, and that Holie Donut management witnessed or knew of the train of events. In full perspective, the assault by offensive touching would constitute the gravest element of a larger pattern of actionable sexual harassment. 4. Exclusivity of the remedies ofG. L. c. 151B. Section 4(16A) of G. L. c. 151B, inserted by St. 1986, c. 588, § 3, prohibits “an employer, personally or through its agents, to sexually harass any employee.” At least since 2002, the MCAD, in its Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Guidelines § III(C) (2002), has advised that “[a]n employer may ... be liable for the sexual harassment of its employees by certain non-employees, such as customers . . . when the employer knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take prompt, effective and reasonable remedial action. . . . The greater the employer’s ability to control the non-employee’s conduct, the more likely it will be found liable for that person’s unlawful harassment.” In Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96, 105 (2005), the court expressly adopted that standard: “An employer who passively tolerates the creation of a hostile working environment implicitly ratifies the perpetrator’s misconduct and thereby encourages the perpetrator to persist in such misconduct. . . . Moreover acquiescence on the part of the employer effectively communicates to the victim of harassment that her employer does not care about the hostile environment in which she must work .... [A]n employer who is not part of the solution inevitably becomes part of the problem.” See Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603-608 (2006) (public employer’s tolerance of employees’ homophobic abuse of coworker creates actionable hostile work environment). If an employer’s inaction in the face of sexual harassment and assault of an employee by a customer falls within the operation of § 4(16A), then all the more so would the employer’s attempt to suppress the employee’s efforts for a remedy. Under this standard, the allegations of Ryan’s complaint fall within the operation of § 4(16A). Section 5 of G. L. c. 15 IB authorizes complaints to the MCAD for remedies of compensatory damages, civil fines, and restraining orders. The complainant must file within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination. Ibid. Section 9 of c. 15IB, as amended by St. 2002, c. 223, § 2, provides that the administrative proceeding “shall, while pending, be exclusive.” That section provides also that a claimant “may, at the expiration of ninety days after the filing of a complaint with the [MCAD], or sooner if a commissioner assents in writing,” bring a civil action for damages and injunctive relief in the appropriate Superior, Probate and Family, or Housing Court, and incur dismissal of the administrative complaint. In other words, the statute suspends, but does not extinguish, a claimant’s other causes of action. Decisions examining the relationship of the G. L. c. 15IB administrative complaint to common-law claims and other statutory causes of action involving discrimination have stated that commencement of a timely administrative complaint must precede any such common-law claim created after enactment of the statutory remedies now appearing in §§ 5 and 9. See Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc., 417 Mass. 580, 586 (1994); Melley v. Gillette Corp., 19 Mass. App. Ct. 511, 512-513 (1985) (specifically observing that statutory rights and remedies predated recognition of common-law tort of wrongful discharge in Massachusetts). Occasional language has described the exclusivity and required exhaustion of the c. 15 IB administrative complaint process more categorically. See Sereni v. Star Sportswear Mfg. Corp., 24 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 430 (1987) (“In the absence of a timely complaint to the MCAD, there may be no resort to the courts”); Cherella v. Phoenix Technologies, Ltd., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 919 (1992) (“Resort to the courts is not available for a complaint of discrimination within the jurisdiction of the MCAD unless the person claiming to have been the object of unlawful discrimination first makes a timely complaint to that agency”). Multiple reasons favor a required first resort to the administrative system afforded by G. L. c. 15IB. It furnishes a comprehensive remedial process designed to resolve claims of discrimination with fairness and efficiency for both the complainant and the respondent. Its administrative attributes include a reasonably prompt time limit (300 days) promoting notice to the respondent and the preservation of evidence by all parties, a neutral investigation and probable cause determination, and conciliation services, pursuant to § 5; compensatory damages, civil fines, restraining orders, and the award of reasonable attorney’s fees to deserving claimants, pursuant to § 9; and the cumulative institutional judgment of a specialized agency accustomed to distinguishing meritorious from unmeritorious grievances. See Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc., supra at 583; Melley v. Gillette Corp., supra at 512-513; Windross v. Village Automotive Group, Inc., 71 Mass. App. Ct. 861, 863-864 (2008) (purpose of mandatory submission to MCAD process “is twofold: [1] to provide the MCAD with an opportunity to investigate and conciliate the claim of discrimination; and [2] to provide notice to the defendant of potential liability”). Those benefits of a calibrated legislative scheme offer distinct advantages against traditional litigation in trial courts of general jurisdiction upon multiple variant theories of statutory and common-law wrongdoing. Therefore, as a jurisdictional prerequisite, the complaint must pass first through the MCAD portal for the potential advantages of timeliness, efficiency, expertise, and negotiation. The statute maintains access to judicial review in the Superior Court under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7), and, as noted, the option of withdrawal from the administrative process after ninety days for direct access to the courts. 5. Present circumstances. The allegations of Ryan’s complaint charge Holie Donut management not only with tolerance of a customer’s continuing sexual harassment of its employee, but also with deterrence of her efforts to seek help, and finally with retaliatory discharge of her for those eventual efforts. We acknowledge the peculiar circumstance alleged in this case: that the perpetrating customer was a member of the local police force often in the company of a second officer, and that one or more members of the police department may have inhibited management’s willingness to assist its employee. However, that circumstance would not relieve management of the duty to do so. A retail shop in the shadow of a police station does not possess an exemption from the duty of a reasonable effort to safeguard the security and dignity of its employees from sexual harassment by a police officer. As discussed at oral argument, an abuse of official authority would more properly intensify the employer’s duty to act. Because Ryan’s grievance fell within the statutory jurisdictian of the MCAD, she should have submitted an administrative complaint to the agency within 300 days of her retaliatory discharge, and not commenced a common-law action in the Superior Court almost three years later. She was not entitled to bypass the mandatory and preferred procedure. The omission creates a conclusive affirmative defense requiring dismissal. Judgment affirmed. The complaint does not identify the “authorities" to whom Ryan reported or complained. Other documents in the appellate record recite, without objection by either party, (1) that the Chelsea police department conducted an internal investigation, “sustained” Ryan’s complaint, and imposed unspecified discipline upon Officer Morabito; and (2) that Ryan received compensation of $8,121.62 for lost wages under the terms of the statute providing compensation to victims of violent crimes, G. L. c. 258C, administered by the Attorney General. The court surveyed comparable Federal case law and prescribed as a standard of liability the test whether the employer reasonably knew of the harassment and whether it made reasonable efforts to remedy it, whether completely successful or not. Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Comm. Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. at 108-109. In that instance, employees of a subcontractor harassed a female carpenter employed by Modem Continental/Obayashi, the construction general contractor. Modern Continental took reasonable steps, but not completely effective ones, to end the harassment. The court found its efforts reasonable and reversed the administrative decision of the MCAD imposing liability. Id. at 118. The same clause of § 9 adds that “the final determination on the merits shall exclude any other civil action, based on the same grievance of the individual concerned.” In 1965, the Legislature first broadly prohibited “discrimination in employment because of sex” by addition of “sex” as a forbidden basis for disparate “conditions ... of employment.” St. 1965, c. 379, § 4. The formal recognition of tortious wrongful discharge occurred in DeRose v. Putnam Mgmt. Co., 398 Mass. at 210, in 1986. As the court observed in Melley v. Gillette, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 512, these features resemble the benefits attributed to the exhaustion of administrative remedies and promoted by the legislative requirement of a ninety-day interval at the agency. This category of customer would not fit comfortably within the employer’s range of “control,” but it would demand the employer’s reasonable effort to protect its worker and to fulfil the law. “Few institutions depend as heavily on integrity and credibility for the effective performance of their duties as do police departments.” Local 346, Intl. Bd. of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Commn., 391 Mass. 429, 439 (1984). As recounted above, see note 1, supra, the record indicates that the department investigated and sustained Ryan’s complaint and imposed discipline. The motion judge properly relied upon Melley v. Gillette Corp., 19 Mass. App. Ct. at 512-513, another instance in which a plaintiff omitted the administrative process and filed an action for wrongful discharge in the Su

Michael S. O’Brien vs. Massachusetts Institute of Technology & others. No. 11-P-45. September 25, 2012. Handicapped Persons. Anti-Discrimination Law, Handicap, Termination of employment. Employment, Discrimination, Termination, Retaliation. A Superior Court judge awarded summary judgment in favor of Michael S. O’Brien’s former employer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), on his handicap discrimination and retaliation claims. The judge ruled that O’Brien’s claims failed because he had no reasonable expectation of establishing essential elements of his case. See Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 809 (1991). On count 1 (handicap discrimination), the judge ruled that O’Brien could not establish that he is a handicapped person within the meaning of G. L. c. 15 IB (the statute), and that even if he could establish his handicapped status, he would not be able to meet his burden of showing that the reasons given for his discharge were a pretext. On count 2 (retaliation), the judge found that O’Brien could not establish that he experienced adverse employment actions prior to his discharge, and that the discharge itself was too remote from the protected activity (a complaint to the United States Department of Labor) to establish a causal connection. Jack R. Stark and Donald J. O’Mara. O’Brien appeals, claiming that he presented sufficient evidence to send his case to a jury. With respect to O’Brien’s discrimination and retaliation claims against MIT, and viewing the record in the light most favorable to O’Brien, see Lyons v. Nutt, 436 Mass. 244, 245 (2002), we agree. This is not to say that MIT in fact discriminated or retaliated against O’Brien. That is a question for the jury on which we express no opinion. We hold only that the evidence is sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact that preclude the award of summary judgment on counts 1 and 2. 1. Background. O’Brien worked at MIT’s central utility plant (CUP) as a second-class engineer for approximately ten years, starting in 1997. Given the nature of the GUP’s operations, engineers are expected to work overtime. Throughout his employment, O’Brien suffered from pain in his back and legs. He underwent two surgeries: in 2003, he had surgery on both legs, and in November, 2004, he had spinal surgery. Neither surgery was successful, and O’Brien continued to experience pain. In February, 2005, after his second surgery, O’Brien provided MIT with a letter from his surgeon explaining that because of continued pain, O’Brien’s ability to work overtime was limited. O’Brien subsequently tried repeatedly to obtain sick leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and an accommodation that would excuse him from working overtime. These requests were accompanied by doctors’ notes stating, inter alla, that O’Brien had chronic leg pain “that disrupts his sleep”; that he “likely [would] miss work 1-2 days per month”; that he had a neurological condition made worse by working long hours and that it was “important for his long term health that he not be required to work overtime”; and that he had lower extremity neuropathic pain, spinal stenosis, and lumbar radiculopathy, with “[bjuming pain [in] both lower legs that worsens after prolonged standing hence limiting time on feet.” MIT rejected each request, generally stating that the medical documentation submitted “did not describe circumstances that would entitle [him] to leave under FMLA,” and requesting that he submit additional forms and documentation. In September, 2006, while O’Brien’s request that he not work overtime was pending, one of his supervisors, Jack Stark, commented to another manager that he could not wait until the day he could fire O’Brien. In November, 2006, after O’Brien’s request for an accommodation was formally denied, he filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor (department). On April 11, 2007, as a result of negotiations with the department, MIT provisionally approved FMLA leave “due to a serious medical condition.” In December, 2006, while O’Brien’s complaint with the department was pending, another supervisor, Donald O’Mara, sent an internal electronic mail message (e-mail) strongly opposing an accommodation for O’Brien on the ground that it would set a precedent. The e-mail stated, “I have no interest whatever in accommodating [O’Brien] at all.” As we have noted, O’Brien first informed MIT that his medical condition affected his ability to work overtime in the beginning of 2005. Prior to that time, during his first eight years of employment, the only disciplinary action involving O’Brien was a single warning he received in January, 2002, for improperly closing a damper. However, following his first request to be excused from working overtime until his employment was terminated in September, 2007, O’Brien received a number of verbal and written warnings and was suspended for a variety of infractions, including insubordination, failing to complete assignments, leaving his post without proper coverage, and abuse of MIT’s sick leave policy. A fellow worker, John Spinosa, submitted an affidavit stating that O’Mara and Stark “appeared to have two different sets of standards for performance in the CUP. One set of standards for . . . O’Brien and the other set of standards ... for the rest of the workforce,” and that he had “personally observed much of this discriminatory treatment.” As to the termination of O’Brien’s employment, there is no dispute as to the following. On September 8, 2007, O’Brien was assigned to work a twelve-hour shift, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. At some point in the early afternoon, he was asked to start CUP chiller number one. During the “slow-roll” start-up process, O’Brien left the CUP to retrieve his truck in a nearby lot, bringing it back to the parking lot next to the CUP. He then washed the truck and a kayak attached to the truck’s roof, drove the truck to a parking garage, and returned to the CUP. At the end of his shift, O’Brien left for a scheduled two-week vacation. Upon his return, O’Brien was informed by letter that his employment was terminated for “unacceptable” conduct in connection with having abandoned his post and for other disciplinary concerns. Spinosa’s affidavit stated that it was common practice to leave the chiller during the slow-roll process because the equipment did not need constant monitoring at that point, and that he was not aware of any discipline imposed on any other engineer for that behavior during his twenty-five years at CUP. 2. Discussion. a. Count 1 — handicap discrimination, i. Handicap status. To establish that he is handicapped within the meaning of G. L. c. 15IB, O’Brien must show that (1) his “condition, actual or perceived, constitutes a mental or physical ‘impairment’[;]... [2] the life activity curtailed constitutes a ‘major’ life activity as defined in G. L. c. 151B, § 1(20), and its accompanying regulations^] . . . and [3] ‘the impairment substantially limit[s] the major life activity’ ” (citations omitted). New Bedford v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 440 Mass. 450, 463 (2003). There is sufficient evidence on each prong to preclude summary judgment. First, there clearly is evidence that O’Brien’s chronic pain constitutes a physical impairment. Second, there is evidence in the record demonstrating that this impairment limits at least two major life activities, sleep and work. Third, a jury could conclude that these major life activities are substantially limited by O’Brien’s impairment. The question whether an impairment substantially limits an individual’s ability to sleep as compared to the ability of the average person in the general population “requires an individual, case-by-case assessment.” Shedlock v. Department of Correction, 442 Mass. 844, 852 (2004). In his deposition, O’Brien testified that there were weeks when he would sleep only “one or two hours a night, three or four hours a night for a week or two . . . depending] on how many days in a row [he] had to work, what shifts [he] had to work.” He would sometimes go for days with only four hours of broken sleep. Also, O’Brien’s doctor noted that O’Brien “continues to have leg pain that disrupts his sleep” and he “will likely have exacerbations that require missing work intermittently.” If the jury were to credit this evidence, they could conclude that O’Brien’s ability to sleep is substantially limited in comparison to the average person. See ibid. A limitation on work is “substantially limiting]” for purposes of G. L. c. 151B when the impairment “prevents or significantly restricts the individual from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 632, 639 (2004). Given the evidence in the record, and the broad range of jobs in the Commonwealth that require overtime, the question whether O’Brien is substantially limited in his ability to work is, again, one for the jury.»» ii. Pretext. Next, we consider whether MIT has proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating O’Brien, and, if so, whether O’Brien could meet his burden of establishing that the reasons given were a pretext. See Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813, 821 (1997). It may, in fact, be true that O’Brien was terminated for leaving his post during the slow roll of chiller number one. Here, however, there is direct evidence of serious resistance by MIT to O’Brien’s request to be excused from working overtime due to his medical condition, and to his applications for leave under the FMLA and for reasonable accommodation. O’Mara’s internal e-mail and Stark’s comment about wanting to fire O’Brien raise a jury question whether MIT’s proffered reason is in fact why O’Brien was terminated or whether, instead, it is a pretext, and O’Brien was terminated either because of his handicap or in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct, namely, filing a complaint with the department. Seth Stoffregen for the plaintiff. Scott A. Roberts for the defendants. Evidence in the summary judgment record would also support a finding that, beginning about the time he first sought accommodation due to his medical condition, O’Brien was singled out for disciplinary action. In addition to O’Brien’s deposition testimony, the Spinosa affidavit avers that there was one set of rules for O’Brien and another set of rules for everyone else. b. Count 2 — retaliation. This claim is premised on the treatment O’Brien received after he filed his complaint with the department. He alleges that harassment by his supervisors, resulting in numerous verbal and written warnings, as well as his termination in September, 2007, were “adverse action[s]” entitling him to recovery. See Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582, 591-592 (2004), quoting from Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 827 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 985 (1992) (retaliation claim requires plaintiff to show that “he engaged in protected conduct, that he suffered some adverse action, and that ‘a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse action’ ”). There is no question that O’Brien’s filing of the department complaint constituted protected conduct. Because a reasonable juror could conclude that the verbal and written warnings, as well as O’Brien’s termination, were all “adverse actions” that, if shown to have been retaliatory, would entitle him to recover under the statute, MIT is not entitled to summary judgment. Under the retaliation provision of the statute, “adverse actions consist of a defendant’s action ‘to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against’ the plaintiff.” Mole v. University of Mass., supra at 592 n.14. Any such action that “materially disadvantage^] ” a plaintiff is an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim. See Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697, 707-708 (2011). Here, the less serious infractions ultimately were included among the reasons for imposition of the sanction of termination (see note 4, supra) and, therefore, could be construed as having materially disadvantaged O’Brien. See Nye v. Roberts, 145 Fed. Appx. 1, 6 (4th Cir. 2005). 3. Conclusion. The judgment is reversed as to counts one and two against MIT. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. So ordered. We affirm the grant of summary judgment on O’Brien’s additional claim of tortious interference against Stark and O’Mara. As the motion judge found, this claim fails because they were supervisory employees whose actions were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and the claim is therefore preempted by the Federal Labor Management Relations Act. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 141 et seq. (1994); Magerer v. John Sexton & Co., 912 F.2d 525, 530-531 (1st Cir. 1990). To the extent O’Brien argues that the claim is not preempted because his allegations of improper motive and means (discriminatory and retaliatory animus) involve actions outside the CBA, the argument is not sufficiently developed, and we do not reach it. The frequency of reprimands escalated in August, 2007, when O’Mara reprimanded O’Brien three times in as many weeks, for infractions ranging from failing to wear his fire retardant suit to leaving the CUP without informing O’Mara. The letter of termination set forth a history of prior disciplinary actions and noted that O’Brien had been “counseled” on three occasions during the preceding month of August for improper conduct. (See note 3, supra.) O’Brien’s union pursued a grievance challenging the termination under the CBA. The matter proceeded to arbitration, and the arbitrator upheld O’Brien’s termination. We review an order granting summary judgment de nova to determine “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991). MIT did not argue, and the motion judge did not reach the question, whether O’Brien could make out the second element of his prima facie case, establishing that he is a qualified handicapped person. See, e.g., Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813, 822 & n.11 (1997). We do not address the question. We observe that some Federal courts have found that, as a matter of law, inability to work more than a forty-hour week is not a “substantial limitation” on the ability to work for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See Boitnott v. Corning, Inc., 669 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2012). However, these cases were decided under a construction of the ADA’s “substantial limitation” language that was subsequently rejected by Congress in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008). In any event, G. L. c. 151B, not the ADA, applies in this case. See, e.g., Dahill v. Police Dept. of Boston, 434 Mass. 233, 240-243 (2001). With respect to the major life activities of thinking and concentrating, O’Brien stated in his affidavit, “I’ve endured numerous days and countless nights of private torture and tears and my ability to concentrate is often impacted.” In light of our conclusions about sleep and work, we need not decide if this is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether these major life activities are substantially impaired. Should the evidence at trial be sufficient to support such a conclusion, the judge will be free to instruct the jury on the point.