A former New Bedford detective filed a lawsuit against the city and the police chief, claiming retaliation (G.L. c. 151B, Sec. 4[4]) and aiding and abetting (G.L. c. 151B, Sec. 4[5]).
According to court documents, the detective was insulted by a fellow officer during the policemen’s ball in 2017.
The officer allegedly referred to the detective using “several derogatory, homophobic insults.”
The detective later reported the incident to the chief of the police.
After an internal investigation, the chief suspended the foulmouthed officer for three days without pay.
Despite this, the detective was apparently still unhappy in New Bedford and sought a lateral transfer to the Taunton police department.
After talking with the Taunton police chief, the detective’s application was turned down.
Court documents say that “the Taunton police did not hire the [detective] because of concerns that he was a highly experienced officer who would have to return to being a junior patrol officer.”
However, the detective allegedly suspected that his transfer was rejected because someone said something negative about him to the Taunton chief.
Accordingly, the detective filed suit in superior court.
The city filed a motion for summary judgment which a superior court judge allowed.
The decision was appealed.
Today the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
According to the Appeals Court,
The plaintiff has failed adequately to allege an adverse employment action. The judge permissibly found, based on the record, that the plaintiff’s allegation that someone from the department disclosed his conflict with a superior officer was unsupported by admissible evidence. Neither the failed transfer to the Taunton police nor the plaintiff’s resignation constituted an adverse employment action. The position with the Taunton police would have required the plaintiff to move from a detective role to a junior patrolman role, where he would have received lower pay and fewer opportunities. Therefore, the plaintiff’s failure to secure the position did not result in material disadvantage.
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.