Not easily. In a February 2025 decision, the Appeals Court refused to give a city and its police chief a new trial after a jury found they discriminated against a police officer because of race and retaliated against him, in violation of G.L. c. 151B. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
A former Greenfield police officer sued the city and its police chief, claiming race discrimination and retaliation in his employment. The case went to a sixteen-day jury trial in the Superior Court. During trial, the jury heard evidence that a sergeant, who was not a defendant and did not make decisions about the officer’s employment, displayed a confederate flag on his private property. The judge later ruled that evidence should not have come in and told the jury to disregard it. The jury found the defendants liable for discrimination and retaliation. The defendants asked for a mistrial and then a new trial, pointing to the flag evidence, the judge’s treatment of defense counsel, and the exclusion of statements from a mid-trial settlement conversation. The judge denied those requests.
What the court decided
In Buchanan v. City of Greenfield, No. 23-P-564 (Mass. App. Ct. February 5, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision), the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment on all three issues.
The confederate flag evidence. The court agreed the flag evidence was not relevant. But a mistrial is an extreme remedy, and a judge may instead give a curative instruction telling the jury to ignore improper evidence. Juries are presumed to follow those instructions. Harris-Lewis v. Mudge, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 480 (2004). Although the instruction came late, it was enough. The sergeant was not a decision maker, so the evidence was not very prejudicial to begin with. And the jury’s verdict showed it listened: the only employment action the jury found was not motivated by racial animus was the internal investigation the sergeant had first reported.
The judge’s conduct. The defendants claimed the judge was hostile to their lawyer in front of the jury. The court reviewed each remark and found they were in keeping with the judge’s job of controlling the trial and keeping order, such as telling counsel to stop side comments and to let a witness answer. See Commonwealth v. Hogan, 426 Mass. 424 (1998). The judge also told the jury not to read anything the judge said or did as an opinion on how to decide the case. The court noted the judge might have shown more restraint at times, but there was no abuse of discretion.
The settlement conversation. During trial, the officer’s co-plaintiff and the chief had a private conversation, approved by their lawyers, about settling. The trial judge found it was a settlement negotiation and kept it out. Statements made to settle a claim generally cannot be used to prove or disprove the claim, though they may sometimes be used for another purpose. See Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601 (1996). The defendants said they wanted the statements to attack the co-plaintiff’s credibility. The court did not decide whether the statements should have been admitted. Even if excluding them was an error, it made no material difference, because the jury heard substantial other evidence of racial bias, including evidence that the officer was treated differently from comparable officers.
The court also allowed the officer’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal. G.L. c. 151B, § 9, requires a fee award to a prevailing employee unless special circumstances would make it unjust.
What this means for you
A jury verdict in a discrimination case is hard to overturn. Appeals courts give trial judges wide room to manage evidence and the courtroom. A single piece of evidence that should not have come in usually will not undo a verdict if the judge tells the jury to ignore it and the rest of the evidence supports the result.
The case also shows what wins discrimination cases at work: evidence of how you were treated compared with coworkers in similar positions. And if you win under Chapter 151B, the employer will generally pay your reasonable attorney’s fees, including the cost of defending the verdict on appeal.
What to do now
- Keep a dated record of each decision that affected your job: discipline, investigations, assignments, promotions and pay.
- Note how coworkers in similar roles were treated for similar conduct.
- Save emails, texts, reports and names of witnesses.
- Talk to a lawyer early. A charge of discrimination generally must be filed with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination within 300 days of the discriminatory act. G.L. c. 151B, § 5.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Deadlines for discrimination and employment claims can be short.
