BOSTON (LN) — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Friday affirmed a $1.4 million jury verdict against the town of Marshfield, ruling that a trial judge’s improper blending of pretext and mixed-motive jury instructions did not prejudice the town because the jury found the employer’s retaliatory conduct extreme and outrageous.
Kevin C. Robinson, the town’s former fire chief, sued the town alleging retaliation in violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (4). Robinson claimed the town retaliated against him for complaining that his niece, a firefighter in the department, was being discriminated against because of her gender.
After a two-week trial, a jury found the town liable for retaliation and awarded Robinson $0.30 million in compensatory damages for emotional distress and $1.1 million in punitive damages. The town moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur, arguing the evidence was insufficient and the jury instructions were erroneous.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion by Justice Geraldine S. Gaziano, concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the town retaliated against Robinson because he complained of gender discrimination. The court noted Robinson’s detailed statement to the board explaining how other firefighters with performance deficiencies had received additional training or counseling, while his niece did not.
The court also found sufficient evidence of causation, citing the temporal proximity between Robinson’s complaints and the town’s adverse actions. Within ten days of Robinson reporting his brother’s complaint that his niece was not being treated the same as similarly situated male employees, town administrator Rocco Longo and labor counsel John Clifford met with Robinson to discuss a possible conflict of interest. Approximately three months later, the board voted not to renew Robinson’s employment contract or approve his requested salary increase.
The court acknowledged that the trial judge’s jury instructions improperly blended pretext and mixed-motive frameworks. In a pretext case, the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion, whereas in a mixed-motive case, the burden shifts to the employer once the plaintiff produces strong evidence of illegitimate motive. The court determined this case should have been governed framework alone, as Robinson’s evidence did not rise to the level of "inescapable" or "highly probable" inference required for mixed-motive analysis.
However, the court ruled the instructional error was not prejudicial. The jury’s answers to special verdict questions, particularly the finding that the town’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, left no doubt about their ultimate findings. The jury awarded punitive damages, which required a finding of extreme and outrageous conduct, effectively confirming their rejection of the town’s legitimate reasons for Robinson’s termination.
Robinson began working as a firefighter for the town in 1978 and was appointed fire chief in 2003. He had never faced disciplinary action prior to the events in this case and received a positive performance appraisal in 2012.
The town’s defense relied on allegations of nepotism and violations of conflict of interest laws. The town hired attorney Mark Smith to investigate allegations of unlawful conduct, and Smith’s final report concluded Robinson violated G. L. c. 268A. The town referred the matter to the State Ethics Commission and placed Robinson on administrative leave in March 2015. Robinson resigned later that same month.
The State Ethics Commission later notified Robinson that it did not intend to further investigate his actions because he had retired.
Robinson’s attorney, Anne Glennon, represented him. The town was represented by Jason W. Crotty.
The case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative from the Appeals Court.