## Facts

- Kathleen E. Bandera was hired in September 1997 as Executive Director of a newly created Community Policing Commission within the Quincy Police Department, reporting to the Mayor and Police Chief.
- Bandera testified she was warned she would face difficulty as a woman and as a civilian and that, during her tenure, she was excluded from meetings, ridiculed, and subjected to sexually explicit comments by male officers.
- Bandera asserted the Mayor and Police Chief were informed of at least some concerns but did not stop the conduct; she further testified the Police Chief asked the Mayor to replace her with a male officer.
- Bandera was notified on June 9, 1998 that her employment would end effective at the end of June 1998.
- She brought federal and state claims alleging sex discrimination and harassment (Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B).
- In October 2001 mediation, the parties signed a handwritten “Memorandum of Agreement” contemplating a later stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, payment to Bandera’s counsel, a neutral reference letter, and a resignation/press release arrangement; later negotiations failed and no dismissal was filed.
- The case was tried to a jury before a magistrate judge by consent; the jury found the City liable for sexual harassment under Title VII and ch. 151B, found no wrongful discharge, and found no individual liability under § 1983 or ch. 151B.
- The jury awarded no back pay or front pay but awarded $135,000 in punitive damages against the City under ch. 151B.
- The City argued Bandera’s claims were barred by the mediation memorandum and also challenged the admission of testimony from Officer Nancy Coletta about her own harassment and her views about Bandera’s allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether the October 30, 2001 mediation “Memorandum of Agreement” barred Bandera’s claims as an enforceable settlement requiring judgment for the City.
2. Whether the admission of extensive testimony about another officer’s alleged harassment, and related opinion-type testimony, so unfairly prejudiced the trial that the verdict could not stand.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court declined to hold, as a matter of law, that the mediation memorandum barred Bandera’s claims.
- The court held that the trial was affected by evidentiary error, chiefly the admission of expansive testimony about another officer’s experiences and related opinion evidence, and that the error was not harmless in a close credibility-driven case.
- The judgment for Bandera was vacated and the case was returned for retrial.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary mediation writing does not automatically bar later litigation; enforceability depends on whether the parties intended the writing to be immediately binding and whether material terms were sufficiently complete, including whether later instruments (such as a dismissal stipulation and release) were contemplated as necessary steps.
- In hostile-environment cases, evidence about workplace “atmosphere” may be relevant, but courts must confine such evidence to what is probative of the plaintiff’s work environment and must exclude or limit evidence whose unfair prejudice, confusion, or mini-trial risk substantially outweighs its value.
- Detailed “other incidents” testimony by a nonparty employee, especially vivid accounts untethered to the plaintiff’s specific circumstances, can create substantial unfair prejudice and warrant a new trial when the liability case is not strong and credibility is central.
- Lay opinion testimony concerning another person’s allegations or credibility is generally improper absent a valid evidentiary basis and may compound prejudice when admitted in a contested case.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the signed mediation memorandum did not, on this record, require judgment for the City as a complete settlement barring Bandera’s claims, but it vacated the harassment verdict and punitive-damages judgment because the admission of highly prejudicial “other harassment” and related opinion testimony likely affected the outcome, requiring a new trial.


Bandera v. City of Quincy, 344 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2003)