Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
(WESTERN DIVISION)

NICHOLLE HUBER, )
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. )
)
) C.A. No. 3:16-cv-30140
CITY OF CHICOPEE )
and ALAN RYCZEK, )
Defendants. )
)
)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Nicholle Huber (“Ms. Huber” or “Plaintiff”), the most qualified applicant for a

job as Motor Equipment Repairperson at the Central Maintenance Garage (“the CMG”) in

Chicopee, Massachusetts, brings this action against the hiring employer, the City of Chicopee

(“the City”), and Allen Ryczek, Supervisor of the CMG (“Mr. Ryczek”) (together “Defendants”),

alleging discrimination on the basis of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B (“Chapter 151B”).

The central issue in this case is sexism within the CMG. Although Ms. Huber was

admittedly “the most qualified candidate” for the Motor Equipment Repairperson position, her

job offer was ultimately retracted because of her gender. Defendants, moreover, tried to conceal

their sexist motivations by retroactively imposing a pseudo-essential job requirement on Ms.

Huber, i.e., that she be required to lift 100 pounds. Plaintiff has been unlawfully harmed and

seeks damages, punitive damages, and all other available relief by way of this lawsuit.

1
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 9

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Ms. Huber, is a female individual residing at 360 Batchelor Street, Granby,

Massachusetts 01033.

2. Defendant, the City, is a municipality governed by a Mayor, Richard J. Kos (“the

Mayor”), and also containing a Central Maintenance Garage (“the CMG”). The Mayor’s office is

located in City Hall at 17 Springfield Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts 01013. The CMG is

located at 677 Meadow Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts 01013.

3. Defendant, Mr. Ryczek, is an individual employed by the City as the Superintendent of

the CMG, located at 677 Meadow Street, Chicopee, Massachusetts. On information and belief,

Mr. Ryczek resides at 161 Rimmon Avenue, Chicopee, MA 01013.

BACKGROUND

4. Ms. Huber is a certified diesel mechanic who received formal training and has more than

four years of experience.

5. On or about December 4, 2015, the City posted a job opening for a Motor Equipment

Repairperson at the CMG to which Ms. Huber applied.

6. Upon information and belief, the CMG has never employed a female except for one

clerk.

7. Ms. Huber applied for the Motor Equipment Repairperson position. At the time, she was

working at Camerota Truck Parts in Enfield, Connecticut.

8. The purported job description for the position for which Ms. Huber applied listed

numerous “ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITES” as well as a number of additional

“QUALIFICATIONS”, none of which indicated that the employee would be required to lift 100

pounds. Rather, near the end of a lengthy section entitled “PHYSICAL DEMANDS”, the job

2
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 9

description simply provided that “[t]he employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 100

pounds.” The job description also provided that “[r]easonable accommodations may be made” in

order to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

9. Lifting 100 pounds was not an essential duty, responsibility, qualification, or requirement

of the position for which Ms. Huber applied, Motor Equipment Repairperson.

10. On January 19, 2016, Ms. Huber had her first interview for the job at which she was

interviewed by Mr. Ryczek, Frank Myers, Foreman of the CMG (“Mr. Myers”), Amy Berube-

Rivera, Assistant Superintendent of the Department of Public Works (“Ms. Berube-Rivera”), and

Raisa Riggott, Director of Human Resources (“Ms. Riggott”).

11. Even though lifting 100 pounds was not an essential duty, responsibility, qualification, or

requirement, the interviewers used “Mr. Ryczek’s checklist” which indicated “[a]bility to lift up

to 100 pounds on a regular basis” as part of the “qualifications/requirements.”

12. At the first interview, Ms. Huber discussed her size and whether lifting 100 pounds was

actually required. Ms. Huber only weighs ninety-eight pounds. She was assured by the

interviewers that her size was not a problem and that lifting 100 pounds was not required.

13. On or about January 20, 2016, as documented in a contemporaneous email, Mr. Ryczek

told Ms. Berube-Rivera that Ms. Huber was “the most qualified candidate” but that he was

“scared to death to fire a female.” He further acknowledged that he “knows it is discrimination.”

In response, Ms. Berube-Rivera told Mr. Ryczek that there are policies which protect every

employee from harassment.

14. Later that day, Mr. Ryczek asked Ms. Berube-Rivera what would happen if Ms. Huber

“wanted to start a family,” indicating that there was no light duty work at the shop. Ms. Berube-

Rivera informed Mr. Ryczek that accommodations would have to be made when Ms. Huber

3
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 9

needed them. Mr. Ryczek said he was going to talk to his crew and get back to Ms. Berube-

Rivera.

15. On or about January 22, 2016, Ms. Berube-Rivera emailed Ms. Riggott, indicating that it

was “collectively” agreed by Mr. Ryczek, Ms. Berube-Rivera, and Jeffrey Neece, Superintendent

of the Department of Public Works (“Mr. Neece”), that Ms. Huber was “the most qualified

candidate.” According to the email, out of the four candidates, Ms. Huber (the only female) was

the only one who had experience working on heavy construction equipment.

16. On or about February 1, 2016, as documented by a contemporaneous email, Mr. Ryczek

informed Mr. Neece and Ms. Berube-Rivera that he believed that Ms. Huber was “the most

qualified candidate,” but also stated that he was “afraid to hire her because she was a woman and

he was afraid of a sexual harassment lawsuit.”

17. On or about February 24, 2016, Ms. Huber had a second interview for the job, this time

with Mr. Ryczek, Ms. Riggott, and Mr. Neece.

18. Even though lifting 100 pounds was not an essential duty, responsibility, qualification, or

requirement, the interviewers again used “Mr. Ryczek’s checklist” which, as before, indicated

“[a]bility to lift up to 100 pounds on a regular basis” as part of the “qualifications/requirements.”

19. At the second interview, Ms. Huber again discussed the issue of lifting 100 pounds. Once

again, Ms. Huber was assured by the interviewers that lifting 100 pounds was not required.

20. In a letter from Ms. Riggott dated March 7, 2016, the City offered Ms. Huber the position

contingent on her successfully passing a pre-employment physical exam. The offer further

indicated that Ms. Huber would work forty hours per week at twenty dollars and four cents per

hour and that her start date would be March 28, 2016. The issue of lifting 100 pounds was not

mentioned in the City’s offer letter.

4
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 9

21. On or about March 9, 2016, Ms. Huber accepted the offer of employment.

22. On or about March 14, 2016, Ms. Huber had her physical exam during which she

successfully picked up fifty pounds, three times. She was not instructed to lift 100 pounds.

23. After the physical, Ms. Huber was contacted by Ms. Riggott who told Ms. Huber that she

successfully passed her physical and offered her the position. Ms. Riggott further instructed Ms.

Huber to give her current employer “two weeks’ notice”.

24. On or about March 18, 2016, Ms. Huber, relying on the City’s offer, the successful

physical, and Ms. Riggott’s assurances, left her job at Camerota Truck Parts.

25. On or about March 22, 2016, Ms. Riggott contacted Ms. Huber to inform her that there

had been a “lot of discussion” regarding her employment and that the City had decided to instead

hire someone who could lift 100 pounds on a regular basis.

26. On or about March 23, 2016, Mr. Neece emailed Ms. Riggott (with a “Cc” to Mr.

Ryczek) in which he indicated that Ms. Huber was “very upset” because Ms. Riggott “told her

that she would not be getting the job.” “This was not what we discussed,” Mr. Neece continued.

Instead, Mr. Neece wrote: Ms. Huber was told in both of her interviews that the 100 pounds

lifting requirement was “not a big deal”; Mr. Ryczek “always teamed mechanics in pairs”; “no

one in the garage is expected to lift 100 pounds unassisted in the effort to prevent injury”; Ms.

Huber told him that she was reluctant to lift 100 pounds during the physical exam because it had

not been described to her by the City as “a hard and fast requirement”; and Ms. Huber was

“made to feel comfortable in this so that she gave her two week notice at her current job.”

27. Also on or about March 23, 2016, Ms. Berube-Rivera noted in an email that an employee

at the CMG mentioned to her that the CMG staff was “joking around using signals like ‘yellow

5
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 9

card’ and ‘red card’ (like in soccer games) to prepare themselves when the ‘girl’ begins working

in the garage.”

28. On or about March 25, 2016, Mr. Neece met with the Mayor who asked him about the

CMG position. As detailed in an email dated March 28, 2016, Mr. Neece told the Mayor that he

disagreed with “HR’s insistence” that the job offer be retracted because Ms. Huber purportedly

“did not lift 100 pounds.” According to Mr. Neece, Ms. Huber had been told in two separate

interviews that the alleged “100 pound lifting requirement would not be a problem, and that none

of the mechanics would be required to lift that weight without assistance.” According to the

email, the Mayor asked Mr. Neece why Mr. Ryczek saw fit to see him in his office to advocate

for the alleged “100 pound rule” to be applied to Ms. Huber, adding that Mr. Ryczek “was

almost in tears.” In response, Mr. Neece told the Mayor that he had no knowledge of Mr. Ryczek

going to visit him. The email concluded with the Mayor indicating that he had “instructed [Ms.

Riggott] from HR to arrange for a new physical examination” for Ms. Huber.

29. On or about March 29, 2016, Ms. Riggott contacted Ms. Huber to tell her that the City

would give her another physical and chance to lift 100 pounds, even though lifting 100 pounds

was not an essential duty, responsibility, qualification, or requirement, and even though the City

was well aware that Ms. Huber was specifically informed that she would not need to lift 100

pounds and that none of the mechanics were required to lift that weight without assistance.

30. Later that day, Ms. Huber wrote a letter to Ms. Riggott. Among other things, Ms. Huber

indicated that, in her interviews, Mr. Ryczek “stated that I would not have to lift this weight as

he paired employees in sets to accomplish assigned tasks.” Continuing, Ms. Huber wrote that

while she was “not turning down” anything, she understandably would not “re-take the physical

exam and attempt to lift 100 pounds.”

6
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 9

31. Upon information and belief, no CMG employee (all of whom except for the one clerk

are male) has ever been required to lift 100 pounds as an essential function of his job.

COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
(The City)

32. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

33. Plaintiff satisfied all prerequisites under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and

otherwise to filing the present Complaint.

34. Defendant, the City, failed or refused to hire Plaintiff or otherwise discriminated against

Plaintiff with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,

because of her sex.

35. As a proximate and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s acts or attempted acts,

Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer loss of income and employment benefits, mental

and emotional distress and other damages and losses.

36. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages and all available relief.

COUNT II
Mass. G.L. ch. 151B
(The City)

37. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

38. Plaintiff satisfied all prerequisites under Mass. G.L. ch. 151B and otherwise to filing the

present Complaint.

7
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 9

39. Defendant, the City, failed or refused to hire Plaintiff or otherwise discriminated against

Plaintiff with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,

because of her sex.

40. As a proximate and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s acts or attempted acts,

Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer loss of income and employment benefits, mental and

emotional distress and other damages and losses.

41. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages and all available relief.

COUNT III
Aid, Abet, Incite, Compel, or Coerce the Doing of Acts
Forbidden Under Mass. G.L. ch. 151B or Attempting to do so.
(Allen Ryczek)

42. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.

43. Plaintiff satisfied all prerequisites under Mass. G.L. ch. 151B and otherwise to filing the

present Complaint.

44. Defendant, Mr. Ryczek, aided, abetted, incited, compelled, or coerced the doing of acts

forbidden under Mass. G.L. ch. 151B or attempted to do so.

45. As a proximate and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s acts or attempted acts,

Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer loss of income and employment benefits, mental and

emotional distress and other damages and losses.

46. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages and all available relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered against Defendants for

the following:

a. actual damages;
b. compensatory damages;
c. back pay

8
 Case 3:16-cv-30140-MGM Document 1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 9

d. front pay
e. emotional distress damages;
f. punitive damages;
g. costs;
h. reasonable attorney fees;
i. interest; and
j. such other relief and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Dated: August 10, 2016 The Plaintiff

NICHOLLE HUBER
By Her Attorneys:

/s/ Nathan A. Olin _________________

Nathan A. Olin, Esquire (BBO #630580)
Lan T. Kantany (BBO #688387)
CONNOR, MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP
273 State Street, Second Floor
Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
Tel: (413) 455-1730
Fax: (413) 455-1594
nolin@cmolawyers.com
lkantany@cmolawyers.com