Case Background
Mary Boyle, a 55-year-old woman from Braintree, Massachusetts, sued her former employer, Wayfair, in Suffolk County Superior Court. Boyle left a 32-year career at Verizon when Wayfair hired her on April 1, 2019, as a Senior Manager in the company's Service Innovation Division for the Change Manager role. She filed her complaint on December 2, 2021, after first taking her claims to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. She filed the original age discrimination charge there on March 31, 2021, then amended it on August 11, 2021, to add retaliation and disability discrimination claims. The Commission cleared her to file a private lawsuit on November 18, 2021.
Cause
Boyle claimed Wayfair discriminated against her because of her age, retaliated against her after she complained, and treated her unfairly after she took protected medical leave. She said she was the oldest member of her division, with the next oldest worker being 39. In August 2019, Wayfair moved her out of the Change Manager role and into a Program Manager role so a younger new hire, Sim Sandhu-Hobson, could take over. Boyle pointed to Wayfair's Campus MBA Program, which hired young graduates straight out of business school, as a practice that pushed out older employees. She also said her manager, Meghana Rao, made repeated ageist comments, describing her as "set in her ways" and slow to learn technology.
Boyle reported the discrimination to Wayfair's Talent Department and a senior leader in October 2020. She claimed that after she complained, the company blocked her from transferring to another position, launched an out-of-cycle performance review to manufacture a reason to stop the transfer, and gave her the worst possible performance rating. She went out on medical leave in October 2020 and again in January 2021. Wayfair placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan in June 2021 and terminated her on August 10, 2021.
Injury
Boyle said the company cut her end-of-year bonus by fifty percent, denied her an annual raise, and ultimately fired her. She also claimed Wayfair invaded her privacy by disclosing details of her age discrimination complaint to coworkers, including Sandhu-Hobson and an employee named Michael O'Day, who was then pressured into writing a negative review of her. Boyle said she suffered ongoing harm as a result.
Damages Sought
Boyle asked the Court to order Wayfair to pay back pay, future pay, emotional distress damages, costs, interest, and attorney's fees. She also sought compensatory and punitive damages and treble damages for age discrimination and for retaliation under the medical leave statute. Beyond money, she asked the Court to require Wayfair to provide proper training for its human resources staff and to permanently stop discrimination in its workplace.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Mary Boyle
· Counsel for Plaintiff: John Koury, Esq. | Joseph F Comenzo, Esq. | David C Johnson, Jr., Esq.
Defendant: Wayfair, LLC (named as Wayfair, Inc. in the pleadings)
· Counsel for Defendant: Joshua D. Nadreau | Zinnia K. Khan | Joseph Peter Mendes, Esq.
Claims
Boyle brought five separate counts against Wayfair.
In her age discrimination claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, she argued she was over 40 and could perform her job, but the company took adverse actions against her, including blocking her transfer, cutting her bonus, and firing her, in part because of her age.
In her retaliation claim under the same statute, she said she engaged in protected activity by complaining about age discrimination and by requesting a reasonable accommodation. She argued Wayfair retaliated by blocking her transfer, reducing her bonus, and terminating her.
In her disability discrimination claim, also under Chapter 151B, Boyle said she had a disabling condition that affected major life activities, including fatigue, that she could still do her job, and that Wayfair reduced her bonus, fired her, and denied part of her accommodation request because of her condition.
In her invasion of privacy claim under Chapter 214, Boyle said she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her personnel records and in her discrimination complaint, and that Wayfair violated that privacy by sharing her complaint with coworkers.
In her final claim, retaliation under the medical leave statute Chapter 175M, she argued her firing was presumed retaliatory because it happened within six months of her return from leave.
Defense
Wayfair filed its answer on February 9, 2022, and denied the heart of Boyle's allegations. The company admitted some basic facts, such as her hire date, her job title, and the identities of her managers, but denied that it discriminated or retaliated against her. Wayfair said its decisions about her employment and termination rested on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, and that it acted without any retaliatory motive.
The company raised twenty affirmative defenses. It argued Boyle failed to state a valid claim, that she could not prove its reasons were a pretext for discrimination, and that she could not show a causal link between her complaints and any action the company took. Wayfair also said it had made good-faith efforts to follow anti-discrimination laws, that it had engaged in a proper dialogue about her accommodation request, and that Boyle had failed to reduce her own damages. On the privacy count, the company argued it had a legitimate interest in evaluating her job performance. Wayfair denied that Boyle deserved any damages or other relief and asked for its own trial by jury.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdict on April 27, 2026. On the first question, the jury found that Wayfair did not discriminate against Mary Boyle because of her age. On the second question, however, the jury found that Wayfair retaliated against Boyle because she had complained of age discrimination. On the third question, the jury found that Wayfair also retaliated against her because she took leave under the medical leave statute.
The jury then awarded Boyle damages. It granted her $75,124.65 in back pay, $600,000 for emotional distress, and $4,000,000 in punitive damages. The jury foreperson, Bruce Colletta, signed and certified that the verdict represented the agreement of at least five-sixths of the deliberating jurors.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
