Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Law Constructive Discharge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retired lieutenant appeals after internal inquiry; alleges constructive discharge and due-process violations
Summary
Joseph T. Baker, a retired Massachusetts State Police lieutenant, told the Appeals Court he resigned after being forced to choose between returning to work under a superior he had accused of harassment or accepting a distant transfer; state police asked the court to affirm a dismissal of his complaint.
Joseph T. Baker, a retired lieutenant of the Massachusetts State Police, argued pro se that his 26-year career ended in constructive discharge after an internal harassment complaint against a superior and a contested internal investigation. Baker said the investigation’s supervising colonel had promised to recuse but later signed the investigative outcome, that the investigative unit withheld witness interview transcripts, and that the department gave him two unattractive options rather than remedial relief.
Baker told the panel he discovered Major Thomas Majenski mocking him to colleagues and that he filed a written harassment complaint which the department assigned to the harassment-investigation unit. Baker said Lieutenant Colonel Richard Warmington initially agreed in writing to recuse but signed the report exonerating Majenski. "If this isn't the bold faced definition of a cover up, I don't know what is," Baker said during oral argument, and he said investigators denied him access to witness interview transcripts and declined to offer internal appeal options beyond outside remedies.
Counsel for the Massachusetts State Police, Sean Farrell, asked the court to affirm the superior court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Farrell argued that, even taking Baker’s allegations as true for pleading purposes, the complaint did not state the required adverse-employment-action elements for retaliation or demonstrate constructive discharge under controlling precedent. Farrell said the transfer options and continued employment offers do not legally amount to an "adverse employment action" sufficient to sustain the claims.
The justices questioned both sides about whether the alleged refusal to provide appeal rights internally, the claimed recusal failure, and the options the department offered amounted to intolerable working conditions or a materially adverse employment action. The court took the matter under advisement.
Baker will remain available in court while the panel considers the written record and briefs.
