## Facts

- Nancy M. Billings worked as secretary to the Town Administrator for the Town of Grafton, Massachusetts, beginning in 1999.
- Billings alleged her supervisor repeatedly stared at her chest during conversations over an extended period, without accompanying sexual comments or physical contact.
- Billings testified the conduct affected her work behavior and comfort (e.g., avoiding being alone with her supervisor, shielding her chest with papers, and once going home to change clothes).
- Billings complained internally to the town’s sexual-harassment officer; the matter was presented to town leadership and investigated, including outside review and medical evaluation of the supervisor.
- The investigations concluded the supervisor’s eye behavior was not sexually motivated and that Billings had not been sexually harassed.
- After her internal complaints and administrative filings, Billings alleged retaliation, including a transfer to a recreation department secretarial role and other workplace actions she viewed as disciplinary or punitive.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated, unwanted staring at an employee’s breasts by a supervisor, even without sexual remarks or touching, can be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII and Massachusetts law.
2. Whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that post-complaint actions—especially a lateral transfer and related measures—were materially adverse and causally linked to protected activity to support retaliation claims.

## Decision

- The First Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment in substantial part and remanded.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the alleged persistent breast-staring was sex-based harassment that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find the transfer and certain other challenged actions were materially adverse under the governing retaliation standard, even without a pay cut.
- The court left undisturbed the dismissal of some alleged retaliatory incidents deemed non-actionable, while allowing the core hostile-environment and principal retaliation claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Hostile work environment claims are assessed under the totality of the circumstances; the absence of explicit sexual remarks or physical touching is not dispositive.
- Conduct may be actionable if it is objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive and sufficiently severe or pervasive to change the conditions of employment.
- At summary judgment, factual conflicts about intent, credibility, and competing explanations for conduct are generally for the jury when supported by record evidence.
- Under the Title VII retaliation standard, an action is materially adverse if it might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint.
- A transfer that is formally lateral may still be materially adverse if it reasonably can be viewed as reducing prestige, responsibilities, or career prospects.
- Retaliation may be shown through circumstantial evidence, including temporal proximity and disputes over the employer’s stated reasons (pretext).

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that persistent, targeted leering at an employee’s breasts can support a hostile work environment claim even without overt sexual advances, and that a lateral transfer and related measures can qualify as materially adverse retaliation under the reasonable-worker standard, requiring jury resolution of disputed facts.


Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2008)