The Limits of Strict Vicarious Liability: The First Circuit Clarifies Who Is, and Who Is Not, a Supervisor Under Chapter 151B?

Key Takeaways

• Supervisory authority is determined by function, not title. The analysis focuses on the alleged harasser’s actual authority over the complaining employee.
• Supervisor status determines the liability standard. Supervisor harassment can trigger strict employer liability, while coworker harassment generally turns on the employer’s knowledge and response.
• Effective complaint procedures and documentation remain essential. Employers should maintain effective reporting procedures and promptly investigate and address harassment complaints.

Massachusetts employers face a challenging standard when workplace harassment is committed by a supervisor. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 151B  establishes strict liability for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor, regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take adequate remedial action.

In Savage v. City of Springfield, the First Circuit, among several issues, addressed the plaintiffs’ claims of harassment and hostile work environment arising under M.G.L. Chapter 151B, reaffirming the distinction between harassment by a supervisor and harassment by a coworker with an impressive title, and setting a clear boundary for strict vicarious liability.

What Triggers Vicarious Strict Liability for Employers in a Hostile Work Environment Claim in Massachusetts?

Beginning with the SJC’s decision in College Town, Division of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156 (1987), Massachusetts courts have recognized strict employer liability for the discriminatory and retaliatory harassment of supervisory employees. Unlike its federal counterpart (Title VII), strict liability under 151B does not allow for affirmative defenses premised on reasonable preventative measures and the employee’s failure to utilize those measures.

When the alleged harasser is simply a coworker, employer liability turns instead on a negligence theory. The operative question becomes whether the employer knew, or should have known, of the harassing behavior, and failed to take steps to correct it.

What Does Savage Add to the Analysis?

The plaintiffs in Savage, two Springfield firefighters, alleged discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under c. 151B. On appeal, they argued that any employee with the title “supervisor” engaging in harassing behavior should trigger strict liability.

The Court disagreed, finding that a supervisory title, standing alone, is not necessarily dispositive of whether the bad actor was the plaintiff’s supervisor. The analysis focuses on the alleged harasser’s actual authority over the plaintiff.

Citing its 2005 decision in Noviello v. City of Boston, the Court found that “a ‘supervisor’ for the purposes of vicarious liability under MGL Chapter 151B must be someone with the actual ability to exercise supervisory powers over a victim, not just a person with general supervisory status that has no such reach.”

What Does This Case Mean for Employers Going Forward?

First, when a harassment complaint is made, identify who actually supervised the complaining employee, and determine the authority that person exercised over assignments, evaluations, discipline, scheduling, promotion, and other material employment decisions related to the complaining employee. Do not rely on titles alone. Organizational titles such as “supervisor,” “manager,” or “lead” may not resolve the Chapter 151B liability analysis. Actual authority and the relationship to the complaining employee are what matter.

Second, document reporting structures. Create clear organizational charts, job descriptions, delegation of authority, and reporting relationships, because they will later become important evidence when the employer’s potential vicarious liability is disputed.

Finally, respond promptly to coworker harassment. Where strict liability does not apply, the employer’s knowledge and remedial response become the focus of litigation.  Employers should maintain effective reporting channels, investigate complaints promptly, and document corrective measures accurately.

CMBG³’s Perspective — What We Are Seeing

There is currently no Massachusetts state court appellate decision that makes this distinction so plainly. For defendants litigating Chapter 151B claims in federal court, Savage provides binding First Circuit authority limiting strict vicarious liability to individuals who actually exercise supervisory authority over the plaintiff. State-court defendants can cite Savage as persuasive authority, but Massachusetts courts are not bound by the First Circuit’s interpretation of Chapter 151B and remain governed by SJC precedent. As a result, strong consideration should be given to removing state court cases involving strict liability claims to federal court where appropriate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who qualifies as a “supervisor” under Chapter 151B?

The employee’s title is not dispositive. The relevant inquiry is whether the individual exercised actual supervisory authority over the employee alleging harassment.

Is an employer automatically liable for workplace harassment by a supervisor?

When the harasser exercises supervisory authority over the employee, Chapter 151B may impose strict vicarious liability on the employer.

What standard applies when the alleged harasser is a coworker?

Employer liability generally depends on whether the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action.