Amy Rae v. Woburn Public Schools, et al.

In assessing the timeliness of employment claims, the U.S. Supreme Court case of National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002)(hereinafter “Morgan”) distinguished between (i) “discrete acts” that are each independently actionable on their own and (ii) acts that are not independently actionable but that collectively comprise a single “unlawful employment practice.” Petitioner Amy Rae (hereinafter “Rae”) alleges a pattern of conduct that includes independently actionable “discrete acts” (e.g., denial of promotion) and many acts that in isolation are not independently actionable, including incidents of yelling and mocking. Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to say that her retaliatory harassment claim was no more than an “attempt to amalgamate a series of discrete acts” into a single claim? Under Morgan, independently actionable discrete acts can be part of the basis for a hostile work environment claim as long as they are part of the same pattern as the acts that are not independently actionable. Rae’s retaliatory harassment claim is based on a pattern of conduct that includes both independently actionable acts (such as denial of promotion) and acts that are not independently actionable (such as insulting speech). Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to say that Rae’s harassment claims were only an amalgamation of discrete acts “disguised” as a “single retaliatory harassment claim”?