Former captain says accommodation request triggered retaliation; city disputes adverse‑action findings

Tanny Saperstein, arguing for Reggie Miller, told the court the employee engaged in protected conduct by requesting a disability accommodation and that subsequent disciplinary actions (an involuntary‑retirement filing and a written reprimand posted publicly) supported a retaliation claim and punitive damages. Saperstein urged the court to follow First Circuit guidance and emphasized the practical effect of a reprimand and the involuntary‑retirement proceeding on promotion prospects and career standing.

City counsel Morris Cahillane responded that the department provided accommodations, that the particular promotion at issue was discretionary and not a captain vacancy, and that there was insufficient evidence that the reprimand or other interactions produced the kind of tangible employment consequences required by precedent for an adverse‑action finding. Counsel also argued that much of the emotional‑distress and punitive‑damages findings were unsupported by evidence of an intentional discriminatory motive.

Judicial focus and exchanges: The panel pressed both sides on statutory text of chapter 151B, whether requesting an accommodation qualifies as protected conduct for a retaliation claim, and whether the reprimand and subsequent proceedings met the "tangible consequence" or "materially adverse" standards. Appellate briefing and First Circuit decisions (cited by appellant) were discussed as potential guidance.

Status: Argument completed and the case was submitted to the court for decision.