Blogs

Massachusetts SJC affirms $1.4 million retaliation verdict despite acknowledged jury instruction errors

7/2/26

By: Alexandra Held

A recent decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) offers important guidance for employers defending retaliation claims under G.L. c. 151B. Although the Court affirmed a $1.4 million jury verdict despite acknowledging that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury, the decision’s broader significance lies in the SJC’s clarification of the distinct legal frameworks that govern retaliation cases. For employers and litigants alike, Robinson v. Town of Marshfield underscores both the importance of properly framing retaliation claims at trial and the significant exposure that can arise when employees are perceived to have been punished for opposing workplace discrimination.

Key takeaways

• Retaliation claims under Chapter 151B generally proceed under the traditional McDonnell Douglas pretext framework, not the mixed-motive framework.
• Pretext and mixed-motive analyses are mutually exclusive; trial courts should avoid blending the two in jury instructions or verdict forms.
• Instructional errors will not necessarily require a new trial if the appellate court concludes the jury’s findings demonstrate intentional retaliation notwithstanding those errors.
• Chapter 151B protects employees who oppose discrimination directed at other employees, not only discrimination they personally experience, reinforcing potential retaliation exposure for employers.

Background

In Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, 278 N.E.3d 823 (Mass. 2026), the SJC affirmed a jury verdict in favor of former Fire Chief Kevin Robinson, who alleged that the Town retaliated against him after he complained that his niece, a probationary firefighter, was being treated less favorably than similarly situated male firefighters. Robinson alleged that, following his complaints, Town officials initiated ethics investigations, denied him a contract renewal and salary increase, placed him on administrative leave, and ultimately forced his resignation while termination was under consideration. After a two-week trial, the jury awarded $300,000 in emotional distress damages and $1.1 million in punitive damages.

The central appellate issue

The Town argued that the verdict should be reversed because the trial judge improperly combined the traditional pretext framework with the less common mixed-motive framework in both the jury instructions and the verdict slip.

The SJC clarifies the governing frameworks

The SJC reiterated that Chapter 151B retaliation claims ordinarily are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting framework. Under that approach, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action was not the true reason. Mixed-motive cases are reserved for the unusual circumstance in which particularly strong evidence demonstrates that an unlawful motive played a role in the challenged decision, shifting part of the burden of persuasion to the employer.

The Court concluded that Robinson presented a classic pretext case. Although the evidence supported the retaliation verdict, it did not justify application of the mixed-motive framework. Accordingly, the jury should have been instructed on only one analytical framework rather than a hybrid of both.

Why the verdict was still affirmed

Despite identifying instructional error, the SJC held that the error was harmless. The jury specifically found a causal connection between Robinson’s protected activity and the adverse actions, and its award of punitive damages necessarily reflected a finding of intentional and egregious misconduct. Those findings convinced the Court that the jury ultimately found intentional retaliation regardless of the flawed instructions.

Practical implications for employers

The decision reinforces several practical lessons. Employers should ensure that managers understand employees are protected from retaliation when they oppose perceived discrimination against coworkers or other employees, not just discrimination directed at themselves. The case also highlights the importance of carefully documenting legitimate business reasons for adverse employment actions, evaluating timing and decision-maker involvement, and consulting counsel before taking action against an employee who recently engaged in protected activity. For litigants, Robinson serves as an important reminder that accurately identifying the applicable analytical framework early in the case is critical to dispositive motions, jury instructions, and appellate preservation.

Bottom line

Robinson provides one of the SJC’s clearest recent discussions of the distinction between pretext and mixed-motive retaliation claims under Chapter 151B. While the Court ultimately affirmed the verdict because the instructional errors were harmless, its opinion provides valuable guidance for employers, practitioners, and trial courts navigating retaliation litigation going forward.

For more information on this topic, please contact Alexandra Held or your local FMG relationship partner.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.