Joseph T. Baker, a former Massachusetts State Police officer with 25 years of service, resigned in 2019 and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts State Police Department and several individuals, including his supervisor in Troop D, Major Thomas Majenski. Baker alleged multiple claims, including discrimination based on religion, retaliation, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, constructive discharge, and violations of federal civil rights statutes.
The Superior Court dismissed all of Baker’s claims, prompting Baker to appeal pro se, challenging only the dismissals of his retaliation and constructive discharge claims. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Baker’s retaliation claim, holding that the facts alleged sufficiently supported the claim
Baker’s complaint detailed a hostile work environment where Majenski repeatedly mocked and belittled him, including ridiculing his religion and professional abilities in front of colleagues. Baker also claimed Majenski denied him administrative assignments in favor of less experienced officers. After Baker filed an internal complaint against Majenski, the investigation was mishandled: Lieutenant Colonel Richard Warmington, who had a prior professional relationship with Majenski, diverted the complaint to an inappropriate unit and later signed the letter closing the investigation unfounded, despite assurances of Warmington’s recusal. Baker was also denied a copy of the investigative report, contrary to Department policy. When Majenski returned to Troop D, Baker was given the choice to remain under Majenski’s supervision or transfer to distant posts with more difficult commutes. Baker resigned, citing the intolerable conditions.
The Court held that Baker’s allegations plausibly established retaliation under G. L. c. 151B, § 4(4), which prohibits adverse actions against employees for opposing discriminatory practices. The Court emphasized that retaliation claims can succeed even if underlying discrimination claims fail. Baker’s protected conduct – filing the internal complaint – was undisputed. The Court found the mishandling of the investigation and the subsequent ultimatum constituted adverse actions, as they materially disadvantaged Baker’s employment. The Court rejected the Superior Court’s conclusion that Baker suffered no adverse action, noting that the irregularities in the investigation and the untenable choices Baker faced were sufficient to plausibly alleged retaliation.
Regarding constructive discharge, the Court held that Baker could amend his complaint to assert a wrongful discharge claim tied to his constructive discharge allegations. The Court found that Baker’s allegations – chronic hostility, denied opportunities, and the ultimatum – plausibly suggested conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would resign. The Court noted that the proposed transfers, with their excessive commutes and family disruptions, could objectively constitute adverse actions. The Court remanded to allow Baker to clarify his wrongful discharge claim, if desired, while affirming the dismissal of his other claims.
Baker v. Massachusetts State Police Department, 2025 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 316* (Mass. Ct. App. 2025).