Employment - Hostile work environment - Constructive discharge.

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a hearing officer found a respondent employer liable for discriminating against a complainant by subjecting her to a hostile work environment and failing to remedy her complainants of sexual harassment by a co-worker, which resulted in her constructive discharge, the complaint was timely filed based on the continuing violation doctrine.

Affirmed.

"Respondent first argues that Complainant failed to file her complaint within three hundred days of an incident of discrimination. Respondent specifically argues that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply because there was no anchoring incident of sexual conduct at the workplace within three hundred days of the Complainant's filing of the complaint. Respondent asserts that allowing the co-worker responsible for sexually harassing the Complainant to return to work after a six-month suspension did not result in continued sexual harassment in the workplace. We agree with the Hearing Officer's determination that the complaint was timely filed based on the continuing violation doctrine.

" Respondent's re-hiring of [Dmitri] Vlasenko cannot be viewed in isolation, as it is substantially related to the prior incidents of sexual harassment alleged by Complainant. Further, given the specific fact that the Respondent assured Complainant that Vlasenko would not be rehired, Respondent's failure to follow through with its purported remedial measure is sufficient to serve as the anchoring event for Complainant's sexual harassment claim. The Respondent's actions and inaction in relation to Complainant's reports of sexual harassment, together with Vlasenko's sexual conduct, created a hostile work environment. Respondent continued to minimize Vlasenko's conduct and failed to adequately remedy the hostile work environment. The Hearing Officer did not err in concluding that Vlasenko's re-hire constituted...