Complaint Massachusetts Bay Transport Authority Case Study

Complainant is a Black male. Complainant contends that he was hired by Respondent Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) as a temporary sheet metal worker in or around September 2010. Complainant asserts that he had previously worked for Respondent MBTA as a temporary sheet metal worker from on or about June 9, 2008 to in or around June 2009. Complainant alleges that he was assigned to work the night shift while S.C. (White) with less seniority was not assigned to work the night shift. Complainant contends that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by his supervisor, Respondent Kelly (White), throughout his employment.

Complainant alleges that on or about November 28, 2010, Respondent Kelly told him, “hey James,

At the time of this complaint Respondent Kelly was a sheet metal foreman for the MBTA, Respondent Castle was the Senior Civil Rights Investigator in the MBTA’s Office of Diversity and Civil Rights, and Respondent Perez was the Deputy Manager for Human Resources and Labor Relations for the MBTA. Respondents deny all of Complainant’s charges of discrimination. Respondents affirm that Complainant was hired in or around November 2010 as a temporary sheet metal worker. Respondents provided a contract with Complainant’s union that shows, as a temporary employee, Complainant had no seniority rights and was an at-will employee. Respondents affirm that Complainant was assigned to work nights with a work crew headed by foreman Thomas Kelly. Respondents dispute that Thomas Kelly was a supervisor because Respondents contend that Respondent Kelly only distributed work assignments and communicated to MBTA managers for the work crew and had no power to hire, fire, promote or

concerning problems that Complainant and D.P. were causing, provided his notes about what was happening, and stated that neither he or K.T. wanted to work for the MBTA any longer because of Complainant and DP. Respondents contend and provided statements from K.T., Kelly, and B.C. (contractor that accompanied Complainant’s work crew) that on or about June 2, 2011 K.T. discovered Complainant’s phone recording K.T.’s conversations with Kelly in the work vehicle when Complainant was not present in the vehicle. Respondents allege and provided a statement from K.T. that when K.T. confronted Complainant, he admitted to secretly recording others’ conversations in the work vehicle, stated that he had been recording conversations for a long time, and if he was terminated he would ensure the entire work crew was fired. Respondents contend that at the end of this conversation, Complainant began to scream at K.T. and Kelly that they “better not mess with him.” Respondents allege that on the evening of this incident, K.T. called Kelly and reported that he would not come to work because of the stress of the incident. Respondents assert that although K.T. did show up for work on or about June 3, 2011, he had to leave early because he was too stressed out to work with