Where a complainant alleged that her termination was in retaliation for engaging in the protected activity of reporting sexual harassment, a hearing officer’s decision to dismiss the complaint should be affirmed because the complainant failed to prove that the rationale for her termination was pretextual.
“This matter comes before us following a decision by Hearing Officer Eugenia Guastaferri in favor of Respondents Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (‘MSPCA’), Ann Marie Manning, and Kathleen Collins (‘Respondents’). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Officer found Respondents not liable for retaliation in violation of M.G.L.c. 151B, §4(4). Complainant Patricia Suomala appealed to the Full Commission. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Hearing Officer’s decision. …
“Complainant argues that the Hearing Officer erred by concluding that her termination was not in retaliation for engaging in the protected activity of reporting sexual harassment of one MSPCA employee by a Radiation Therapy Technician (‘RTT’). In short, Complainant argues that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find retaliation based on the very short amount of time between her protected activity and her termination, and by overlooking evidence that the Respondents’ reasons for the termination were pretextual, including her good work performance and evidence undermining the credibility of Respondents’ testimony. … Upon review of the record below, we find...
By Ivan Kesic A drone strike on an electrical generator just outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the United Arab Emirates on May 17, 2026, suddenly brought the Persia...