Legal Intern Isabelle Silva contributed to this alert.

A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) reminds employers that even a seemingly positive action can be an adverse employment action forming the basis for a retaliation claim. 

Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, 496 Mass. 82 (2025) stems from the transfer of Sergeant John Babcock. Babcock was a longtime Newton police officer who, as a specialty sergeant, worked regular daytime hours, Monday through Friday, and had weekends or holidays off. Babcock also held a leadership role in the police union. In this union role, Babcock often clashed with the chief of police, David MacDonald. On March 30, 2018, Babcock, as union president, filed a grievance against MacDonald for alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Just weeks later, MacDonald transferred Babcock to a different role, requiring Babcock to work nights on a rotating schedule, with shorter rest periods between shifts. Such inconsistency impacted Babcock’s family life, creating stress on him and his family. Consistent with the CBA, Babcock received an eight percent (8%) raise for working nights in the new position. When Babcock asked MacDonald to explain the reason for the transfer, MacDonald “abruptly ended the conversation, explaining that ‘he was the Chief, [so] he can do what he wanted . . . .’” Before Babcock, no sergeant or lieutenant had ever been involuntarily transferred from a special assignment. 

The union filed a charge with the Department of Labor Relations (“DLR”), alleging the transfer violated labor law. The DLR determined that the city had offered legitimate reasons for the transfer, i.e., prior incidents of insubordination and misconduct by Babcock, and dismissed the charge. The union appealed to the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (“Board”). The Board reversed, finding that the city had failed to produce evidence supporting its asserted reasons for the transfer. The city appealed that decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which determined that Babcock’s transfer was not an adverse employment action, since it was consistent with the CBA. The Board and the union then sought further review by the SJC. 

The SJC analyzed the claim under the burden-shifting McDonnel-Douglas framework applicable to discrimination and retaliation claims. The SJC determined that a transfer could still be an adverse employment action, even if it was consistent with the CBA and was paired with an increase in pay. The SJC clarified that a change that results in a “material disadvantage” to the employee “affecting the ‘objective aspects of the work environment’ that would be ‘objectively apparent to a reasonable person in the employee’s position’” is an adverse employment action. Compliance with bargained-for benefits (i.e., the CBA) was relevant, but not dispositive. Separately, the SJC also ruled that having a good employment record was not required to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 

In the end, the SJC found there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that Babcock’s transfer had resulted in a material disadvantage in the terms and conditions of his employment, despite it being consistent with the CBA and providing a pay raise. The SJC also upheld the Board’s determination that the city had not produced evidence that MacDonald’s transfer decision was based on Babcock’s prior instances of insubordination and misconduct. 

Takeaways for Employers 

Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board is a stark reminder that Massachusetts law is construed liberally to protect employees. An adverse employment action may be found to have occurred if it results in a material disadvantage to the employee, even if it is accompanied by a raise or other benefits. Despite this case involving a public employee in a union, the SJC’s decision applies to all employers.

Additionally, in order for an employer to successfully defend against a claim of discrimination or retaliation, it is important that the employment decision be made for legitimate business reason(s), and for the employer to have good documentation evidencing the reasoning for its decision. It is also best for employers to communicate the legitimate business reason at the time of the adverse action, even to “at-will” employees.

Questions

If you have any questions, please contact a member of Casner & Edwards' Employment Law practice.