In Tardiff v. Laborers International Union of North American Local Union 609 et al, 2025 WL 2374000 (D.Mass. Aug. 15, 2025), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged sexual harassment under Massachusetts state law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Ms. Tardiff has alleged that Mr. Murphy engaged in sexual harassment against her through his disparaging comments regarding her abilities as a woman, his dismissal of her reports of sexual assault by a supervisor, and that he separately engaged in intimidation tactics by brandishing a weapon at her in the workplace. Mr. Murphy told Ms. Tardiff on several occasions that “women don’t belong in the field” and that certain job opportunities would not “work for [her because she is] a girl.” The pervasive use of insulting and demeaning terms relative to women in general may serve as evidence of a hostile environment. Further, Ms. Tardiff alleges that Mr. Murphy – who is Mr. Gardner’s father-in-law – did not properly investigate the assault by Mr. Gardner and “failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that sexual harassment and assault would not continue.” Ms. Tardiff also asserts that other female employees of Local 609 have similarly complained of discrimination and harassment by Mr. Murphy himself and that Local 609 has failed to take corrective action.
Ms. Tardiff also plausibly alleges that Mr. Murphy has engaged in intimidation contributing to a hostile work environment. Specifically, Ms. Tardiff alleges that Mr. Murphy not only displayed a firearm at her while in the office, but that he also boasted about his illegal possession of the weapon. Mr. Murphy is a supervisor who is responsible for other employees’ compliance with the law, but his bragging about flouting gun laws combined with his own brandishing of a weapon in the presence of Ms. Tardiff plausibly supports Ms. Tardiff’s claim that Mr. Murphy “created and/or permitted a hostile work environment.” Further, Mr. Murphy’s physically threatening behavior combined with his pattern of gender-based misconduct rises to the level of intimidation that poses a formidable barrier to the plaintiff’s full participation in the workplace. Such intimidation can support a claim for a hostile work environment.
Ms. Tardiff’s employment was materially affected by this hostile work environment, as she was placed on administrative leave for seven months and argues that she was constructively discharged from employment when she filed her MCAD complaint, which ultimately led to the termination of her administrative leave benefits. The conduct alleged in these early pleadings are sufficient for the claim to move forward.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has asserted enough information to support her claims at the Motion to Dismiss stage and that the conduct of Defendants, taken as a whole, were severe enough to alter Ms. Tardiff’s employment.
(Cleaned up.)
The court further held that plaintiff plausibly alleged that Local 609 is vicariously liable, noting (among other things) that plaintiff alleges that other women had reported similar harassment to Local 609, but that no corrective action was taken.
For these reasons, the court held that the motion to dismiss must be denied.