Yes. The Appeals Court upheld a jury’s award of $500,000 for emotional distress and $1 million in punitive damages to a public school employee whose authority was cut back, and never restored, after she complained of gender discrimination. The court also allowed her to seek attorney’s fees for the appeal. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
The employee, a retired Army officer, was the senior instructor running a high school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program, a role that under Army rules manages the program and supervises the other instructors. After a long conflict with one instructor, she complained to school leaders, and in September 2016 an administrator told her she was only a figurehead. In October she described herself as an abused woman in her workplace, which a district official treated as a gender discrimination complaint. By November the district had learned from the Army that she did have authority over the program, but it still did not restore her role and said it would wait for an Army site visit. She filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, where the district argued that Army rank did not apply to her job, then withdrew it, sued, and won at trial.
What the court decided
The Appeals Court affirmed in Romano v. Lawrence, No. 24-P-353 (Mass. App. Ct. July 31, 2025) (Rule 23.0 decision).
Retaliation. G.L. c. 151B, § 4 (4) makes it unlawful to punish someone for opposing discrimination. To prove retaliation, a worker shows protected conduct, an adverse action, and a causal link. Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 459 Mass. 697 (2011). An adverse action is a material disadvantage that a reasonable person in the worker’s position would see, not just hurt feelings. Yee v. Massachusetts State Police, 481 Mass. 290 (2019). Taking away the core duties the Army assigned to her role met that test.
Causation. The district argued it cut her authority before her complaint. The court said the jury could find that the first cut came from a mistake, but that refusing to restore her authority after learning the truth was tied to her complaint. Other evidence supported a retaliatory motive, including an administrator’s warning not to complain, a report to the Army that the program needed a new leader, and the district’s position before the commission.
Emotional distress damages. Testimony from her and her family described severe and lasting distress. The court held the $500,000 award was not greatly out of proportion to the harm proven.
Punitive damages. Under G.L. c. 151B, § 9, a court may award punitive damages, but only for conduct that is outrageous or egregious. Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009). Relevant factors include how the employer acted after learning its conduct would likely cause harm, and how long the conduct lasted and whether it was concealed. The jury could find the district kept her authority from her after learning it was wrong, never told the other instructors, and kept taking a position it knew was false. On amount, the court looked at reprehensibility, the ratio to actual harm, and comparable penalties, the three factors from BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). A two to one ratio was well within range, especially for noneconomic harm.
What this means for you
A retaliation claim stands on its own. You do not have to be fired. Losing the core duties of your job can be enough. And an employer that learns it made a mistake and then refuses to fix it, after you complained, can face serious damages.
Watch what your employer says in its MCAD position statement. A statement it knows is false can become evidence of bad faith. Here, the court upheld punitive damages against a city and its school department.
Large verdicts are possible, but they depend on strong evidence. Here the employee had Army rules defining her role, witnesses to what she was told, and testimony about the effect on her life.
What to do now
- Put your discrimination complaint in writing and keep a copy with the date.
- Keep the policies, rules or job descriptions that define your duties, and note in writing when any are taken away.
- Write down who said what, and when, in every meeting about your complaint.
- File with the MCAD within 300 days of the act you are challenging, as G.L. c. 151B, § 5 requires.
- Talk to an employment lawyer before you resign or sign anything.
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.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
