Last month, a Superior Court discrimination suit with claims of disparate treatment and hostile work environment survived a motion to dismiss when overtly discriminatory conduct was coupled with more generally harassing conduct that was not clearly religiously-motivated. In Brzuchalski v. Digital Guard, LLC, et al., the Plaintiff, a Jewish man, alleges discrimination by coworkers, which he reported to Human Resources on multiple occasions. The Court considered the coworkers’ “right wing” speech along with derogatory religious remarks, viewing all the conduct as a whole and determining the Plaintiff sufficiently plead his claims.
Brzuchalski claims he was regularly harassed by “MAGA” enthusiasts who discussed their views against diversity, immigrants, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Later, the same colleagues made more overtly discriminatory comments: they discussed support of Mel Gibson’s publicized antisemitic rant, and one stated he “didn’t like his kind” regarding the other Jewish colleague.
Harassment based on political views alone is not a basis for a discrimination suit. Massachusetts law protects employees from discrimination based only on the following categories: race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information, pregnancy or a condition related to pregnancy (including breastfeeding), ancestry or status as a veteran.
However, as this case illustrates, more generalized harassment may offer evidence that support claims of discrimination and hostile work environment when some, but not all of the alleged conduct is based on a protected category.
