03/16/2026
FEDERAL LAWSUIT CLAIMS FRAMINGHAM OFFICIAL HARASSED WOMEN AND FORCED EMPLOYEES OUT OF CITY HALL
A federal civil rights lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court alleges that multiple female employees were driven out of Framingham city government due to harassment, intimidation, and retaliation by Chief Operating Officer Michael Tusino.
The claim appears directly in the complaint filed by former Chief Public Health Nurse Kathleen Mahoney, who alleges a broader pattern of discrimination inside City Hall.
The lawsuit states:
“Multiple female employees have filed grievances, retired or resigned due to the discrimination, harassment, intimidation and retaliation by Defendant Tusino, as well as the hostile environment created by Defendant Tusino.”
Mahoney’s case, Mahoney v. City of Framingham et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-11504, was filed on May 26, 2025 in federal court in Boston and seeks $5 million in damages.
The lawsuit names three defendants:
• The City of Framingham
• Michael Tusino, Chief Operating Officer
• Kathy Davies-O’Leary, Director of Human Resources
The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young.
Because the case has not been publicly updated here on FU since late 2025, here is a full summary of what the lawsuit alleges, who Mahoney was in the city government, and where the case currently stands.
________________________________________
WHO KATHLEEN MAHONEY WAS IN FRAMINGHAM
Kathleen Mahoney worked for the City of Framingham for nearly two decades.
According to the complaint, she began her employment with the city on November 3, 2004, eventually rising to the role of Chief Public Health Nurse in the city’s Health Department.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, her responsibilities expanded significantly. The complaint states she supervised 24 nurses participating in the city’s COVID response, coordinated case management, handled payroll submissions for pandemic staff, and oversaw the evolving quarantine and isolation protocols.
The lawsuit states:
“At all times, she performed her job in a satisfactory fashion.”
Mahoney is also hearing-impaired.
The complaint states:
“Ms. Mahoney is deaf/HOH/hearing impaired. Her hearing impairment rises to the level of a disability… under the law.”
Her disability and the city’s response to it are central to the lawsuit.
________________________________________
CLAIMS OF HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Mahoney alleges that a hostile workplace environment developed inside Framingham City Hall, particularly under the leadership of COO Michael Tusino.
According to the complaint:
“Throughout his employment, Defendant Tusino has bullied, intimidated and harassed several employees. He cultivates a fear of retaliation.”
The lawsuit claims that Tusino particularly targeted women and employees who engaged in protected workplace activity.
“Defendant Tusino specifically targets employees based on their female gender and/or protected activities.”
Mahoney also alleges the problem was systemic and allowed to continue without correction by city leadership.
The complaint states:
“There is additional misogynistic behavior rampant throughout the Defendant Framingham, which Defendants are failing to adequately investigate, remedy and/or correct.”
________________________________________
DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION DISPUTES
A major component of the lawsuit involves Mahoney’s requests for accommodations related to her hearing impairment.
According to the complaint, Mahoney repeatedly asked for workplace adjustments so she could perform her job effectively.
One request involved installing a flashing light to alert her when visitors arrived at her office. The lawsuit states the light was eventually installed but placed outside her field of vision, making it ineffective.
She also requested a phone with increased amplification capability, which the complaint states was denied. As a result, Mahoney allegedly had to bring a TTY communication device from home in order to communicate by phone.
The complaint also alleges that Tusino refused to accommodate her hearing impairment during meetings.
“Ms. Mahoney would ask Defendant Tusino to speak louder in meetings so she could hear him, but he refused.”
The lawsuit further claims Tusino made dismissive remarks about her disability.
At one point, according to the complaint, Tusino allegedly told coworkers that Mahoney was “not really deaf.”
The allegation is notable because Tusino previously served as the interim ADA coordinator for the City of Framingham, the role responsible for ensuring compliance with disability laws.
________________________________________
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM
Mahoney also alleges she suffered a workplace injury while working at a COVID vaccination clinic in June 2021.
According to the lawsuit, the City of Framingham initially denied her workers’ compensation claim.
However, Mahoney challenged the denial and ultimately won the claim, overturning the city’s decision.
The complaint suggests the dispute became another source of tension between Mahoney and city leadership.
________________________________________
COVID PAY DISPUTE
The lawsuit also claims Mahoney was denied compensation she had been promised during the pandemic.
According to the complaint, Mahoney and the nurses’ union reached an agreement with the city to correct her salary and provide back pay after her responsibilities expanded during COVID.
The agreement allegedly provided between $6,500 and $12,000 in back pay.
The complaint states:
“The Agreement was that Defendant Framingham would pay Ms. Mahoney backpay… totaling approximately $6,500 to $12,000.”
Mahoney alleges the city later refused to honor that agreement.
________________________________________
RETIREMENT AND ALLEGED DEROGATORY COMMENT
Mahoney ultimately retired from city employment on July 20, 2022.
The lawsuit claims the hostile environment effectively forced her out.
The complaint states:
“Ms. Mahoney had no intention of retiring at this time in her life… retirement seemed to be her only recourse.”
The lawsuit also alleges that after learning she planned to retire, Tusino made a derogatory comment about her.
“Defendant Tusino stated that Ms. Mahoney was ‘just a spiteful bitch.’”
Mahoney filed a grievance regarding the comment, but the complaint states that no disciplinary action was taken.
________________________________________
FRAMINGHAM UNFILTERED MENTIONED IN THE LAWSUIT
The complaint even references local public discussion of the alleged issues.
According to the lawsuit, there were posts discussing discrimination concerns on the page “Framingham Unfiltered.”
The complaint states:
“There is a page called ‘Framingham Unfiltered,’ a community-driven page with posts such as Zoom links to various city meetings and posts regarding concerns about the discrimination and retaliation in the City of Framingham.”
The lawsuit does not accuse the page of wrongdoing, but cites the posts as evidence that concerns about discrimination within city government had become a topic of public discussion.
________________________________________
WHAT MAHONEY IS SEEKING
Mahoney’s lawsuit asserts numerous claims under federal and Massachusetts employment law, including violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Massachusetts Chapter 151B, which governs workplace discrimination.
The case also includes claims for retaliation, emotional distress, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The federal court docket lists the total demand at $5,000,000, along with requests for attorney’s fees, damages, and court-ordered relief.
________________________________________
THE CITY’S RESPONSE
The City of Framingham and the individual defendants have denied the allegations.
Attorneys from Morrison Mahoney LLP filed an answer in October 2025 disputing Mahoney’s claims and requesting a jury trial.
At this stage, the city has not publicly commented outside the court filings.
________________________________________
CURRENT STATUS OF THE CASE
The lawsuit is now moving through the federal court process.
After the complaint was filed in May 2025, the defendants were formally served in August and filed their responses later that fall.
In January 2026, Judge William G. Young issued a case management scheduling order that sets the timeline moving forward.
Discovery in the case will continue through early 2027. Motions seeking to resolve the case before trial must be filed by November 1, 2026, and the discovery process must be completed by January 25, 2027.
The case has been placed on the February 2027 running trial list in U.S. District Court in Boston.
Unless the case is dismissed or settled beforehand, the allegations could ultimately be decided by a federal jury.
