The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that favored the Boston Police Department in a Title VII retaliation case brought by a former officer who alleged the department improperly shared her disciplinary records with prospective employers.

In *Doe v. City of Boston*, decided Jan. 27, 2026, a three-judge panel unanimously agreed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that no reasonable jury could conclude retaliation was a but-for cause of the Boston Police Department's actions. The decision upholds the district court's January 2025 grant of summary judgment to the department.

Jane Doe, a former Boston Police Department officer, filed the lawsuit alleging the department retaliated against her for engaging in protected conduct under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Doe claimed BPD retaliated by providing her employment records, which contained disciplinary information, to prospective employers who requested them with her authorization.

The case presented two distinct retaliation theories. First, Doe argued that BPD's response to employment verification requests from potential employers constituted unlawful retaliation. These requests included Doe's written authorization for the release of her employment information. Second, she alleged retaliation in BPD's release of information about her employment in response to a Washington Post public records request, which the department was legally obligated to fulfill under Massachusetts state law.

The appeals court examined both claims under the framework established for Title VII retaliation cases, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that retaliation was a but-for cause of the challenged conduct. This standard, established by the Supreme Court in *University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar* (2013), requires showing that the adverse action would not have occurred but for the retaliatory motive.

Circuit Judge Lynch, writing for the panel, found that the undisputed facts could not support a reasonable jury finding of but-for causation. The court noted that BPD's responses to employment verification requests occurred pursuant to Doe's own written authorizations, undermining any claim that the releases were motivated by retaliatory animus rather than standard employment verification procedures.

Regarding the Washington Post records request, the court emphasized that Massachusetts state law mandated BPD's compliance. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 66 and Chapter 4, Section 7(26)(c), public agencies must respond to legitimate public records requests. The court found that this legal obligation provided a clear alternative explanation for BPD's conduct that negated any inference of retaliatory motive.

The decision reflects the challenging burden plaintiffs face in Title VII retaliation cases, particularly when defendants can point to legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for their conduct. The but-for causation standard requires plaintiffs to show their protected activity was the decisive factor in the employer's adverse action, not merely a contributing factor.

Doe was represented by attorneys from the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic, including student counsel Sydney Caras and several clinic attorneys. The comprehensive legal team reflected the case's significance for employment law and civil rights advocacy. BPD was represented by Kay H. Hodge and attorneys from Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP.

The case began in 2021 when Doe filed her initial complaint in federal district court. The litigation traveled through various proceedings in both state and federal courts before reaching the summary judgment stage in the Massachusetts federal district court. District Judge Myong J. Joun granted summary judgment to BPD in January 2025, leading to Doe's appeal to the First Circuit.

The First Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Aframe, Lynch, and Kayatta, with Judge Lynch authoring the unanimous opinion. The court's decision adds to the body of First Circuit precedent on Title VII retaliation claims and provides guidance for future cases involving alleged retaliation through information disclosure.

This ruling demonstrates the courts' careful scrutiny of retaliation claims where employers have legitimate reasons for their actions. The decision may influence how similar cases are evaluated, particularly those involving public records obligations and standard employment verification procedures.

For employment law practitioners, the case underscores the importance of establishing clear retaliatory intent when challenging employer conduct that has alternative explanations. The decision also highlights the protection afforded to public agencies when they comply with mandatory disclosure requirements under state public records laws.

The affirmance leaves Doe without recourse in federal court for her retaliation claims against BPD. The case serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary standards required to prove Title VII retaliation, especially when defendants can demonstrate compliance with legal obligations or standard business practices as alternative explanations for their conduct.