authorized union representative as defined above or the President of ASFCME Local 2824 shail be permitted reasonable time off without loss of pay to: represent employees upon thelr request at Interview which may lead to disciplinary action on the premises of the DPW or other mutually agreeable site; represent grievants at a hearing on the premises of the DPW or other mutually agreeable site; at arbitratlon, Labor Relations Commission or Massachusetts Commission

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000).

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000). The Charging Party has not alleged any facts which can be considered to rise to the level of direct evidence of discrimination.* Indirect evidence can be established through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Town of Carver, 35 MLC several factors which may suggest unlawful motivation. at 48.

See also Jessica Tremblay and Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 34 MDLR 1 (December 28, 2011), citing Beaupre v. Cliff Smith & Associates, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 491 (2000); Riggs v. Town of Oak Bluffs, 23 MDLR 306, 311 (2001) (individual is personally liable for interfering with right of complainant to be free of intimidation and Page 17 of 26 coercion); Deeter v.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655 (2000); Town of 13 Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83, MUP-01-2976 (October 10, 2002). Direct evidence is evidence 14 that, "if believed, results in an inescapable, or at least highly probable, inference that a 15 forbidden bias was present in the workplace." Wynn & Wynn, 431 Mass. at 667 (citing 16 Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

the meeting was to stop Egloff from becoming Fire Chief. 15 The City argues that everyone in the Department knew that Egloff was going to become 67 As the February 2018 letter was unsigned, I do not make a finding as to whether the letter constituted concerted, protected activity. 68 The Charging Parties argued that Boutin, Kennedy, and Miltimore engaged in concerted, protected activity when they respectively filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission

Each of the Charging Parties also filed charges with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. (e.g. Tr. Day 1, Boutin p. 62). This combines two categories of protected activity cited above, opposing acts of sexual harassment and filing a civil action related to labor relations.

Mass. 1998), citing, ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations, (EEOC Notice 915.002 October 10, 1995); Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Guidelines; Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap-Chapter 151B, IV & V, http://www.mass.gov/mcad/resources/employers-businesses/ emp-guidelineshandicap-gen.html. Kerr v.

Desmond argues that the Towns Police Chief was not disciplined after purportedly giving testimony before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) that was deemed not to be credible. After reviewing the MCAD decision in question, I did not find 33 explicit credibility assessments regarding the Police Chief that are comparable to the instant matter.9 The other case cited by Mr.

Dunne submitted his written report to Chief Riello), Officer Gonsalves filed a claim of employment discrimination against Falmouth with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). 17 The MCAD claim was not placed in evidence at the hearing before the Commission but the gist of the claim, as suggested by the testimony, involved Officer Gonsalvess contention that he was the only black FPD police officer and his application to become

Commission Against Discrimination (hereinafter MCAD) bars retaliation against a person who complains about sexual harassment. The Commission is not in the position to enforce this MCAD policy and we are unaware of any related action pending at MCAD. 32 3) the discipline is hereby modified from employment termination to a suspension beginning June 28, 2011 and ending April 30, 2013.

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 665 (2000). Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, results in an inescapable, or at least a highly probable inference that a forbidden bias was present in the workplace. Id., citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 294, 300 (1991).

M.G.L.c. 151B proscribes discrimination in employment, housing and credit services transactions, and is enforced by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 1i (MCAD). M.G.L.151B, 4(9) provides: It shall be an unlawful practice. .