Introduction
On Aug. 21, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Delta Air Lines (“Delta”) in a case brought by a former flight attendant, Sara Caruso. Caruso had sued Delta for discrimination and retaliation in connection with what she alleged,
inter alia, was Delta’s incompetent investigation of her sexual assault claim.
Factual Background
On the night of Aug. 3, 2018, Caruso, two other flight attendants, and First Officer James Lucas went out on the town during a layover in Dallas. They dined and then went bar-hopping. The soirée ended by around 9 p.m., and they headed back to their hotel. Lucas walked the other two flight attendants to their rooms and then walked Caruso back to her room alone. Caruso testified that she had no memory of what transpired next, and the record showed that she was quite inebriated. Shortly after midnight, witnesses saw Caruso running around the hotel in her underwear, banging on doors and yelling for Lucas. She also called Delta’s Operations Control Center, who reported that her speech was “incoherent” and “slurred.” That morning, before working her next flight, Caruso submitted to a breathalyzer test, which registered her blood alcohol content at 0.079, roughly four times Delta’s policy threshold and double the federal maximum. She was suspended pending further investigation.
On Aug. 4, 2018, while back home in Massachusetts, Caruso completed a sexual assault kit, the results of which showed petechiae — small red spots around her eyes, which may be evidence of strangulation, as well as a bruise on her hip and pain in her chin area. The following day, Caruso informed Delta that she thought she may have been drugged and assaulted at the hotel, had completed a sexual assault kit at a local hospital, and had petechiae. She indicated that the kit would be sent to the local police and would be forwarded to the Dallas police. She did not identify Lucas as her potential assailant, nor did she file a police report at that time.
On Aug. 7, 2018, Delta began an investigation, including requesting security tapes and key-card swipes from the hotel, as well as collecting statements from Lucas and the other flight attendants. Delta learned that a police report was necessary to access the hotel’s data and had assumed Caruso had filed a police report.
Also on Aug. 7, 2018, due to her high alcohol level when she had reported to work the morning after the alleged incident, Caruso met with a psychologist arranged by Delta per corporate policy. The psychologist recommended that she complete a 30-day residential rehabilitation program in Tennessee. Caruso agreed and began the program on Aug. 20, 2018. Caruso and Delta were unable to communicate until she completed her treatment.
Caruso finished her treatment on Sept. 24, 2018. Soon after she returned to Massachusetts, she filed a police report on Sept. 26, 2018. The report was sent to the Dallas Police Department. Shortly thereafter, a Dallas police detective contacted the hotel to request video evidence but learned that the files had been overwritten. The detective shared this with Delta Corporate Security. No key-card swipe data was obtained.
On Oct. 17, 2018, the detective contacted Lucas, who asked to consult with counsel before providing a statement. That same day, the detective told Delta that Lucas was cooperating. The Dallas police received serology and toxicology results from the rape kit. Testing for seminal fluid was negative. DNA testing was not done.
On Jan. 7, 2019, the detective informed Delta that there was “insufficient evidence to support criminal charges being filed in this case.” In the same email to Delta, the detective stated that Lucas “did not cooperate with the investigation.” By its own admission, Delta relied on the police conclusion that there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges. Delta Corporate Security knew or should have known that the standard for criminal prosecution is significantly higher than the much lower standard that Delta used when disciplining its employees. Nonetheless, Delta did its own investigation and interviewed Lucas. After giving conflicting accounts, he eventually admitted that the two had a consensual sexual encounter. Delta took no action against Lucas.
Procedural History and Holding
On Dec. 18, 2018, Caruso filed a Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) complaint against Delta. On April 3, 2019, Delta met with Lucas along with his union representative to investigate the MCAD complaint. Delta’s notes of the meeting state that Lucas admitted that he and Caruso “kissed and touched” and that he left the room to procure a condom. When he returned about 15 to 20 minutes later, Lucas found Caruso sitting in the shower with water coming down on her. He stated that she was too drunk to have intercourse, so he helped her to bed and left around midnight. Caruso was topless and wearing only her underwear at the time. Delta found Lucas to be credible and conducted no further investigation. Delta imposed no disciplinary action on Lucas.
On Dec. 30, 2019, Caruso filed her Massachusetts court complaint against Delta, alleging sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and M.G.L. c. 151B. Delta removed the case to the U.S. District Court in Boston, which eventually granted Delta summary judgement. Caruso appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed. The First Circuit held that Delta’s investigation of Caruso’s allegations was reasonable as a matter of law, which shielded it from liability. Moreover, the court held that Delta bore no responsibility for Lucas’ alleged actions, because Caruso failed to show that the alleged harassment was causally connected to Delta’s actions. This is because Caruso failed to present the district court with facts sufficient to prove that Lucas was her supervisor and did not raise this issue on appeal.
What the First Circuit Majority Got Wrong
Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson filed a vigorous dissent. She argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Delta’s investigation was reasonable. We believe that Judge Thompson’s analysis was correct and that the First Circuit made a number of critical inferences that evidenced bias against trauma victims, especially women, who allege sexual assault.
Caruso was entitled to a summary judgment reversal if there was even one genuine issue of material fact in the case.
See Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. Galvin, 807 F.3d 407, 411 (1st Cir. 2015). The First Circuit was obliged to resolve credibility calls, evidentiary issues and competing inferences in Caruso’s favor, even if a jury might ultimately find against her.
There were genuine issues as to the reasonableness of Delta’s investigation, because: (1) a reasonable jury could have found that Delta’s “truth-telling” presumption (explained herein) was unreasonable; (2) Delta discounted important evidence that the sexual encounter was not consensual, such as the petechiae, a bruise on Caruso’s hip and pain in her chin area; (3) Delta ignored obvious contradictions in Lucas’ version of events; and (4) Delta misconstrued the Dallas detective’s statement that there was inadequate evidence to file a criminal complaint as proof that no assault had occurred.
First, consider Delta’s statement to Lucas that it was “operating under the premise that Lucas
has told and
will continue to tell the
truth.” The majority
never mentions this presumption, nor does it say whether Delta afforded Caruso the same presumption regarding her statements. Reasonable jurors could conclude that Delta’s truth-telling presumption was inherently biased in Lucas’ favor. Delta accepted at face value that Lucas was being honest and consistent during his two interviews and his deposition, despite evidence to the contrary.
In his initial interview in August 2018, Lucas said he had “hung out” with Caruso, did not mention that they had been drinking, and failed to note that they were alone in her room. He made no mention of any sexual activity.
In his second interview on April 19, 2019, Lucas disclosed that he and the flight attendants had been drinking and had gone to bars, and said that Caruso was “fine” when the group returned to the hotel. He disclosed that they were hanging out in Caruso’s room and claimed that they engaged in consensual sexual activity. He also noted that he left the room to get a condom, and when he returned after 15-20 minutes, Caruso was “too intoxicated” for intercourse, and he helped her to bed. Lucas never said that Caruso continued to drink after they arrived at the hotel. Lucas only made these statements
after Delta informed him that the interview was not for disciplinary purposes (a stunning statement by an employer investigating an alleged sexual assault).
The majority asserted that whether the encounter was consensual was a non-issue on appeal. While the issue of consent is not an element of Caruso’s claim, the majority overlooked evidence of an assault that was developed during discovery, which was available to Delta and goes directly to the reasonableness of Delta’s response.
During his deposition, Lucas admitted (for the first time) that he had followed Caruso to her room, undressed her, performed oral sex on her, penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers, and put his penis near her face. He also testified that these acts took place between 9 p.m. and midnight, that Caruso was under the influence of alcohol, and that an intoxicated person is incapable of consenting to sexual activity. It is preposterous that Delta gave Lucas a pass on his sexual activity committed about one-quarter of an hour before he found Caruso intoxicated, semi-naked, and sitting in the shower with the water on. If Caruso was too inebriated to consent to intercourse, how could she have been sober enough to consent to
any sexual activity a short time before? Lucas inadvertently admitted to sexually assaulting Caruso before he left to get a condom because she was obviously inebriated at that time. Both Delta and the First Circuit ignored this compelling evidence.
Second, Delta ignored evidence suggesting that Caruso may have been strangled, may have been sodomized by Lucas given the injury to her chin, was running around the hall in her underwear calling his name soon after Lucas left her room, and called Delta’s Operation Center trying to find Lucas. The majority overlooked this evidence and reasonable inferences made from them, while concluding that Delta’s investigation was reasonable.
Third, the majority ignored evidence that two of Caruso’s colleagues had identified Lucas as their drinking companion and that he escorted them to their rooms and then Caruso to her hotel room. Instead, Delta relied only on Caruso’s statement that she was unable to identify the person who had allegedly drugged and assaulted her. Delta intentionally ignored evidence that placed Lucas alone with Caruso, which goes directly to the reasonableness of the investigation. Nonetheless, the First Circuit held that Delta’s investigation was reasonable.
Fourth, the majority relied on the fact that the Dallas Police Department concluded there “was insufficient evidence to support that an offense occurred.” However, that same day, the detective also informed Delta that “[t]here is insufficient evidence to support criminal charges being filed in this case.” Delta’s Corporate Security should have realized that a lack of evidence to file criminal charges is different from concluding that Lucas did not assault Caruso. Certainly, the majority was aware of the heightened burden of proof in criminal cases.
Fifth, Delta and the majority assumed that because Caruso had not immediately filed a police report, this was evidence that she had not been sexually assaulted. This assumption overlooked the fact that the nurse who examined Caruso observed that she was “teary, quiet,” that she had a friend there to hold her hand and support her, that she was angry and scared, and that it took a lot of convincing to make Caruso stay and complete the sexual assault kit. All this evidence, including Caruso’s failure to immediately file a police report, is indicative of severe trauma and provides a plausible explanation for why Caruso did not immediately file the police report. While it may be feasible that jurors could draw an adverse inference because Caruso did not immediately file a police report and submit to a hospital examination while in Dallas, credibility inferences must be drawn in Caruso’s favor. The First Circuit majority was mistaken to use this evidence in Delta’s favor.
Sixth, the majority agreed with Delta’s blaming Caruso for not disclosing that Lucas was her alleged assailant until Dec. 18, 2018. The majority indicated that the jury would have made an adverse inference against Caruso even though flight attendant Victoria Mercer had already told Delta that Lucas escorted Caruso to her room alone. Moreover, the police contacted Delta on Oct. 3, 2018, to discuss Caruso’s allegations and identified Lucas as a suspect. Finally, the majority agreed with Delta’s blame-oriented approach toward Caruso for the lack of hotel key-card data and videos, even though Delta’s own policy required it to ask the hotel to preserve these materials. Delta blamed Caruso rather than focusing its investigation on Lucas. Blaming victims of sexual assault or rape is all too common in our society. The First Circuit majority’s acquiescence to Delta’s victim-blaming proves that old stereotypes die hard, if at all.
Seventh, both Delta and the majority relied heavily on the statement by the detective that Lucas was cooperating. However, the detective told Delta in January 2019 that “Lucas did not cooperate with the investigation.” The majority mentioned this important detail in the fact section of its opinion but ignored it in its analysis.
As a result, it is difficult to fathom why the majority found Delta’s decision to cease the investigation to be “reasonable” when a jury could readily conclude that Delta gave Lucas the presumption of truth-telling, that Lucas refused to cooperate with the police, and that he made evolving statements about what happened — and could make the obvious common-sense conclusion that Lucas was engaging in sexual activity with Caruso when she was too inebriated to consent. Delta’s blatant disregard for the evidence rendered its investigation
per se unreasonable.
Conclusion
Judge Thompson correctly stated in her dissent that “Caruso and Delta engage in a factual scrum. And the majority joins Delta’s side.” The First Circuit allowed itself to be convinced by Delta’s poor investigation, rather than to resolve critical inferences in Caruso’s favor, and send this case to trial.
Valerie C. Samuels focuses on discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, reductions in force, wage and hour, and restrictive covenants. She represents companies of all sizes, including those based in the United States, as well as international companies doing business in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the United States. She provides harassment, discrimination and diversity awareness training; conducts investigations; and drafts employee handbooks and other policies.
Samuels also has substantial expertise in executive and employee advocacy and transition, representing executives, professionals and employees in complex employment issues, including contract negotiation, non-competition and non-solicitation covenants, severance, change of control, deferred compensation and equity interests, and in litigation. She has guided numerous companies and executives through the most difficult employment situations.
Samuels mediates and arbitrates cases for private parties. She was trained in civil mediation by the Community Dispute Settlement Center in 2001 and also received advanced mediation training. She is certified as a harassment prevention and disability discrimination trainer by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Samuels is a member of the American Arbitration Association Arbitration Panel for Employment Disputes.
Samuels routinely appears before federal and state courts and agencies, including the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board.
Samuels has been named a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in 2004, 2005 and every year from 2007 to 2025. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
has named her a Top Women Lawyer in 2016 and named a “Go TO” Employment Lawyer in 2025. Samuels has an AV-Preeminent designation from Martindale Hubbell.