Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—D. Mass.: Fired Black employee advances claims based on supervisor’s race-based texts, (Apr 8, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

A jury could find the supervisor’s comments indicated the stated basis for termination was false.

A Black warehouse employee can proceed to trial with his state-law race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims against two staffing companies and his supervisor, a federal district court in Massachusetts ruled. Denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court found there was a material question of fact as to whether the reason the employee was fired–performance issues–was pretextual where there were text messages supporting the employee’s claim that his supervisor made race-based remarks. Such remarks, along with evidence his supervisor treated Black employees less favorably than white employees with regard to work assignments and conditions, were sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim as well (Brooks v. SIMOS Insourcing Solutions LLC, No. 23-11036-BEM (D. Mass. Apr. 4, 2025)).

SIMOS is a staffing company that handles distribution, fulfillment and manufacturing roles for its clients. It is a subsidiary of TrueBlue, another staffing company that provides human resources support to SIMOS.

Williams-Sonoma contractor. SIMOS hired the employee, a Black male, as a warehouse associate working at the warehouse of its customer, Williams-Sonoma. While working there, he alleged he was subject to offensive, race-based remarks and disparate treatment, particularly at the hand of his supervisor. He pointed to contemporaneous text messages supporting at least some of these allegations. He complained about this treatment to employees and managers at Williams-Sonoma and SIMOS.

Termination. Thereafter, the employee was terminated. He alleged it was in retaliation for reporting racial discrimination. SIMOS claimed it was due to certain performance issues and directions from their client, Williams-Sonoma. The employee filed this action against SIMOS, TrueBlue and his supervisor in Massachusetts Superior Court. He alleged race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Massachusetts Chapter 151B. The defendants filed this motion for summary judgment.

Reason for termination. Denying defendants’ motion on the employee’s race discrimination claim, the court found there was a material question of fact as to whether the reason defendants fired him was pretextual. The employee argued that defendants’ alleged reliance on Williams-Sonoma’s direction to fire him was pretext as evidenced by his supervisor’s allegedly racist statements. Defendants argued the comments were stray remarks that did not demonstrate pretext because Williams-Sonoma made the ultimate decision to terminate him.

The supervisor testified that he made the initial decision to fire the employee, and the evidence suggested that Williams-Sonoma’s request to remove him was based on the supervisor’s report. Thus, the court ruled a reasonable jury could find that the supervisor’s various comments indicated the stated basis for termination was false.

Hostile work environment. The court also denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the employee’s hostile work environment claim, finding he had identified sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude he was subjected to severe or pervasive conduct that was objectively hostile.

The employee pointed to several allegedly racist comments made throughout his employment. He also identified evidence tending to suggest several examples of his supervisor allegedly treating Black employees less favorably than white employees with regard to work assignments and conditions. Although the defendants argued such treatment was factually impossible due to the employee’s position as lead warehouse associate, the court said that kind of weighing of the evidence was not appropriate at summary judgment.

Pretext? Turning to the employee’s retaliation claim, the court found the employee raised a genuine issue of fact as to the basis of his termination. The defendants did not dispute that the employee engaged in legally protected conduct and suffered an adverse employment action. They focused instead on causation and pretext, arguing that legitimate, non-discriminatory problems with his employment justified his termination. As previously discussed, the court found he raised a genuine issue as to whether the stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Thus, he met his burden to survive summary judgment on his retaliation claim.

Claim against supervisor. Likewise, the employee met his burden to survive summary judgment with respect to his claim of interference of his rights against his supervisor. For an individual to be held liable for a violation of Chapter 151B, the individual must have interfered with another’s rights in a manner that was in deliberate disregard of those rights.

Here, the evidence of his supervisor’s allegedly discriminatory animus, paired with his central role in the employee’s termination, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude the supervisor infringed upon the employee’s right to be free from race discrimination and showed a “deliberate disregard” of that right. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment on his claim of interference against his supervisor.

Single employer. Finally, the court found the employee met his burden to survive summary judgment with respect to his claims against TrueBlue. The court disagreed with the defendants that the employee had failed to identify evidence to show that TrueBlue acted as a single employer sufficient to hold it liable under Chapter 151B.

It was undisputed that SIMOS was one of TrueBlue’s business lines and that both companies performed nearly identical functions. The record also showed that TrueBlue’s role included assisting SIMOS with human resources training and formal investigations when SIMOS requested it. While SIMOS retained some responsibility over enforcing policies and conducting investigations, the employee raised a genuine dispute as to whether TrueBlue’s policies and procedures also applied to SIMOS. In addition, TrueBlue’s status as SIMOS’s parent company suggested that the two companies shared at least some degree of common management and common ownership or financial control. Thus, the court allowed the employee’s claims against TrueBlue to proceed.

The case is No. 23-11036-BEM.

Judge: Murphy, B.

Attorneys: Michael O. Shea (Law Offices of Michael O. Shea) for Joel Brooks. Brendan T. Sweeney (Morgan Brown & Joy) for SIMOS Insourcing Solutions LLC.

Companies: SIMOS Insourcing Solutions LLC

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims MassachusettsNews