State police officer wins $11M gender bias verdict

A jury in Massachusetts has awarded the highest-ranking female state police officer $11 million on a discrimination claim that dates to her days as a trooper.

The plaintiff, a major, sued the state police and a fellow trooper after a series of investigations stemming from her discovery in 2016 of sexually explicit material stored on a personal hard drive the fellow trooper had connected to a state police computer.

The plaintiff reported the matter to supervisors, prompting an internal investigation that ultimately led to the trooper’s permanent transfer out of the state police academy, where the plaintiff had been a defensive tactics instructor.

The trooper later filed his own complaint, accusing the plaintiff of misconduct for deploying a taser at him during a training cleanup months earlier. The plaintiff admitted firing an inert cartridge as a prank but maintained the complaint was retaliatory.

The state police sustained the charge against the plaintiff, permanently transferred her out of the academy and later issued her a written reprimand.

The plaintiff sued under the state anti-discrimination law and Title VII, claiming disparate treatment, a hostile work environment and retaliation for her complaints about the sexually explicit material.

A trial court granted a summary judgment motion by the defense. But in July 2024, the state Appeals Court vacated summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim.

A reasonable jury, the court said, could find that the state police conducted a more thorough investigation into the plaintiff’s conduct than into her fellow trooper’s admitted behavior, including allegations that he may have engaged in sexual activity while on duty.

Investigators did not examine the trooper’s hard drive or verify hotel and credit card records, the court noted, while the plaintiff’s conduct prompted multiple interviews and a detailed forensic review.

The panel also pointed to evidence that the trooper described the plaintiff in stereotypical terms, citing alleged “mood swings” and “emotional outbursts,” and that internal decision-makers discounted the plaintiff’s account while crediting male colleagues.

Such evidence, taken together, could support an inference of gender-based bias, the court said.