Pina v. Children's Place, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Pina v. Children's Place, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/36

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1609

J AMI LYA PI NA,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

THE CHI LDREN' S PLACE a/ k/ a THE CHI LDREN' S PLACERETAI L STORES, I NC. and J EAN RAYMOND,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. J oseph L. Taur o, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Wi nst on Kendal l , wi t h whom Law Of f i ce of W. Kendal l , was onbr i ef f or appel l ant .

Mi chael Mankes, wi t h whom F. Ar t hur J ones I I and Li t t l erMendel son, P. C. , wer e on br i ef f or appel l ees.

J anuar y 27, 2014


2/36

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. J ami l ya Pi na ( "Pi na") appeal s

f r omt he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i n f avor of her

f or mer empl oyer , The Chi l dr en' s Pl ace Ret ai l St or es, I nc. ( "TCP") ,

and TCP Di st r i ct Manager J ean Raymond ( "Raymond") . Pur sui ng cl ai ms

of empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on, Pi na asser t s t hat she

was f i r ed, har assed, and not r ehi r ed on t he basi s of r ace i n

vi ol at i on of 42 U. S. C. 1981 and Massachuset t s General Laws

chapt er 151B, sect i on 4. She ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused

i t s di scr et i on by denyi ng t hr ee of her di scover y mot i ons, and t hat

i t er r ed by gr ant i ng Appel l ees' mot i on f or summar y j udgment .

Fi ndi ng no er r or or abuse of di scr et i on, we af f i r m.

I. Background

Because Pi na chal l enges t he gr ant of Appel l ees' mot i on

f or summary j udgment , we revi ew t he f act s i n a manner as f avorabl e

t o Pi na as t he recor d al l ows, "keenl y awar e that we cannot accept

concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed

specul at i on. " Medi na- Ri ver a v. MVM, I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 134 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

A. Factual Background

Pi na, an Af r i can- Amer i can woman, wor ked per i odi cal l y as

a per di em sal es associ at e at TCP' s Sout h Shor e Pl aza st or e

begi nni ng i n J une 2006. 1 I n l at e J une or ear l y J ul y of 2007, Pi na

1 We note her e t hat t he pr eci se t i mi ng of event s i s not al wayscl ear f r omt he r ecor d, wher ei n t he par t i es per i odi cal l y cont r adi ctt hemsel ves and each ot her i n t hei r var i ous descr i pt i ons of dat es.

-2-


3/36

appl i ed f or a posi t i on as an Assi st ant St or e Manager ( "ASM") at

TCP' s Cambr i dgesi de Gal l er i a ( "Cambr i dgesi de") l ocat i on. Raymond

- - TCP' s whi t e mal e Di st r i ct Manager - - i nt er vi ewed Pi na, and on

J ul y 2, 2007, he of f er ed her t he posi t i on. Pi na accept ed t he ASM

posi t i on and ther eaf t er r epor t ed t o t he Cambr i dgesi de St or e Manager

I ngr i d Tr ench ( "Tr ench") , an Af r i can- Amer i can f emal e.

Dur i ng t hi s t i me, Pi na was i n a r omant i c r el at i onshi p

wi t h Mi chael Wi l l i ams ( "Wi l l i ams" ) , an Af r i can- Amer i can mal e who

wor ked f or TCP at t he Sout h Shore Pl aza st or e. Pi na, however ,

began to suspect t hat Wi l l i ams was bei ng unf ai t hf ul , and she

accused mul t i pl e TCP empl oyees of sl eepi ng wi t h Wi l l i ams. Among

t hose Pi na suspect ed were t wo Sout h Shor e Pl aza ASMs: Mel ody Mowat t

( "Mowat t " ) , an Af r i can- Amer i can f emal e, and St ephani e Gi or dano

( "Gi or dano") , a whi t e f emal e.

On t he ni ght of J ul y 20, 2007, Pi na cal l ed t he Sout h

Shore Pl aza St ore Manager Kr i st en Fer nndes ( "Fer nndes") and

accused Mowat t and Gi or dano of f al si f yi ng Wi l l i ams' s t i me car ds.

Pi na assert s t hat whi l e she was dr i vi ng Wi l l i ams t o wor k, he t ol d

her t hat ar r i vi ng l at e was not a pr obl em because one of t he ASMs

woul d " t ake car e of i t . " Because she cont i nued r ecei vi ng f ul l

chi l d suppor t payment s f r om Wi l l i ams even t hough she knew he was

ar r i vi ng l at e, Pi na bel i eved t hat Gi or dano and Mowat t wer e al t er i ng

These di f f er ences ar e har dl y mat er i al , however , and do not pl ay acent r al r ol e i n our anal ysi s.

-3-


4/36

Wi l l i ams' s t i me car ds so that he was pai d as i f he had ar r i ved on

t i me.

Accor di ng t o her deposi t i on t est i mony, Pi na bel i eves t hat

she ment i oned onl y t he t i me card f r aud and t hat she di d not di scuss

any r omant i c rel at i onshi ps or al l egat i ons of sexual i mpr opr i et y

dur i ng her conver sat i on wi t h Fer nndes. Pi na al so now cl ai ms t hat

af t er t el l i ng Fer nndes about t he t i me car d f r aud, she made an

addi t i onal r epor t r egar di ng Gi or dano' s al t er at i on of Wi l l i ams' s

t i me car ds by cal l i ng TCP' s l oss pr event i on hot l i ne. Pi na bel i eved

t hat she woul d be pai d f or her r epor t because TCP' s l oss prevent i on

pr ogr am adver t i sed r ewar ds of up t o $100 f or hot l i ne r epor t s

l eadi ng t o t he t er mi nat i on of an empl oyee f or t hef t .

The f ol l owi ng day, on J ul y 21, 2007, Fer nndes r epor t ed

Pi na' s cal l t o Raymond, who responded i mmedi atel y by i nvest i gat i ng

Pi na' s al l egat i ons. Raymond and Fer nndes revi ewed t hr ee weeks of

t i me car ds and quest i oned t he ASMs at t he Sout h Shore Pl aza st ore

about t he al l egat i ons, but t hey f ound no evi dence of wr ongdoi ng.

Raymond t hen not i f i ed t he Human Resour ces Di r ector of hi s f i ndi ngs.

Nei t her Raymond nor any other TCP empl oyee i ntervi ewed Pi na or

i nf or med her about t he r esul t s of t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he t i me

car ds.

Two days l at er , on J ul y 23, 2007, Pi na accused anot her

TCP empl oyee - - t hi s t i me her own manager , Tr ench - - of havi ng an

af f ai r wi t h Wi l l i ams. Whi l e at a Dunki n' Donut s bef or e wor k, Pi na

-4-


5/36

r ecogni zed one of t he ot her pat r ons: J oe Lesl i e ( "Lesl i e") ,

Tr ench' s par t ner . I n t he presence of Tr ench' s young daught er , Pi na

t ol d Lesl i e t hat Tr ench was sl eepi ng wi t h Wi l l i ams. 2 Lesl i e was

shocked by Pi na' s st atement s and i mmedi atel y i nf ormed Trench of t he

encount er . Tr ench t hen r epor t ed Pi na' s di spar agi ng st at ement s t o

Raymond, who i mmedi at el y quest i oned Pi na t o get her ver si on of

event s. Pi na admi t t ed t o accusi ng Tr ench of sl eepi ng wi t h Wi l l i ams

as r epor t ed, al t hough she ar gued t hat i t was of f t he cl ock and none

of Raymond' s busi ness. Raymond cl ai ms t hat he was shocked by

Pi na' s use of f oul l anguage dur i ng t hei r conver sat i on, t hat he

concl uded Pi na' s act i ons wer e ser i ous and i nappr opr i at e, and t hat

he suspended her wi t h pay pendi ng f ur t her i nvest i gat i on.

Lat er t hat same day, Raymond went t o t he Cambr i dgesi de

st or e t o i nqui r e f ur t her about Pi na' s behavi or . Hi s i nvest i gat i on

r eveal ed t hat Pi na had al so t ol d a Cambr i dgesi de sal es associ at e

t hat Trench was sl eepi ng wi t h Wi l l i ams, al t hough Pi na coul d not

r ecal l havi ng t hat conver sat i on. I n addi t i on, Raymond r ecei ved a

cal l f r om Mowat t , who reveal ed t hat Pi na had l ef t har assi ng

messages on Mowat t ' s cel l phone, accusi ng her of havi ng an af f ai r

2 The par t i es di sput e t he pr eci se l anguage used by Pi na dur i ngt hi s encount er . Appel l ees cont end t hat Pi na sai d Trench was" f ucki ng" Wi l l i ams. Pi na admi t s t hat she used wor ds t o t he ef f ectt hat Trench was sl eepi ng wi t h Wi l l i ams, but dur i ng her swor ndeposi t i on she sai d she was unabl e t o r ecal l whet her or not sheused t he word " f ucki ng. " On appeal , she now vi gorousl y deni eshavi ng used pr of ani t y.

-5-


6/36

wi t h Wi l l i ams as wel l . 3 Fer nndes and anot her TCP empl oyee t ol d

Raymond t hat t hey had l i st ened t o Pi na' s messages and were

concer ned f or Mowat t ' s saf et y. Trench al so t ol d Raymond t hat she

f ear ed Pi na. Raymond determi ned t hat Pi na had engaged i n

har assi ng, di sor der l y, and i nappr opr i at e behavi or and t hat she

coul d pose a t hr eat t o t he saf et y of TCP empl oyees. Af t er

consul t i ng wi t h TCP' s human r esour ces depart ment , Raymond f i r ed

Pi na on J ul y 27, 2007.

On J anuar y 10, 2008, Pi na f i l ed a char ge of

di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he Massachuset t s Commi ssi on agai nst

Di scr i mi nat i on ( "MCAD") , al l egi ng t hat TCP and Raymond t ermi nated

her empl oyment on t he basi s of her r ace because t hey di d not want

t o compensat e her , an Af r i can- Amer i can woman, f or r eport i ng

i nt er nal t hef t . 4 On J anuar y 9, 2011, t he MCAD di smi ssed Pi na' s

char ge, f i ndi ng t hat she had engaged i n a pat t ern of unpr of essi onal

behavi or r esul t i ng i n her t er mi nat i on. The MCAD al so f ound t hat

si x of t he f our t een TCP empl oyees t o have recei ved t he $100 award

f or r epor t i ng t hef t f r om 2007 t o 2008 wer e Af r i can- Amer i can, and

3 Pi na admi t t ed cal l i ng Mowat t t o di scuss her r el at i onshi p wi t hWi l l i ams, but she coul d not r ecal l t he subst ance of t he

conver sat i on or whether or not she l ef t any messages.

4 At her deposi t i on, Pi na t est i f i ed t hat her MCAD st at ement t hatshe was di scr i mi nat ed agai nst because of her r ace was i naccur at e,and t hat what she shoul d have sai d was t hat she was t ermi nat edbecause TCP di d not want t o i nvest i gat e an i nt er r aci al r el at i onshi pbet ween Wi l l i ams and Gi ordano.

-6-


7/36

t hat r epor t i ng i nt er nal t hef t was not pr ot ect ed act i vi t y t hat coul d

gi ve r i se t o a cl ai m of r et al i at i on under Massachuset t s l aw.

Three mont hs l at er , on Apr i l 2, 2011, Pi na appl i ed f or a

posi t i on as an ASM at TCP' s Downt own Cr ossi ng l ocat i on. Pi na

admi t s t hat she di d not know i f t he st or e had any openi ngs f or t hat

posi t i on at t he t i me she appl i ed. Bel i evi ng t hat she mi ssed a cal l

f r om t he Downt own Cr ossi ng st ore ar ound May 12, 2011, Pi na l ater

r et urned t o t he st ore and spoke wi t h t he same TCP empl oyee t o whom

she or i gi nal l y handed her appl i cat i on. Based on t hi s conver sat i on,

Pi na bel i eved t hat t he hi r i ng manager woul d cont act her . Accor di ng

t o Appel l ees, however , t her e wer e no avai l abl e ASM posi t i ons at t he

Downt own Cr ossi ng st or e at t he t i me t hat Pi na appl i ed. Pi na was

never cont act ed or i nt er vi ewed f or t he ASM posi t i on.

When an ASM posi t i on l ater opened up at t he Downt own

Cr ossi ng st or e i n l at e Apr i l or ear l y May 2011, Cynt hi a Henr y

( "Henr y") , t he Di st r i ct Manager r esponsi bl e f or t he Downt own

Cr ossi ng st or e, sel ected an i nt er nal candi dat e t o f i l l t he

posi t i on. The candi dat e she sel ect ed was an Af r i can- Amer i can

f emal e wi t h a year of exper i ence as an ASM i n TCP' s Saugus st or e.

Henr y pr omoted her wi t hout consi der i ng any ext ernal candi dates or

adver t i si ng t he posi t i on.

B. Procedural Background

On J une 14, 2011, Pi na f i l ed a second char ge wi t h t he

MCAD, t hi s t i me cl ai mi ng t hat TCP f ai l ed t o i nt er vi ew and r e- hi r e

-7-


8/36

her on t he basi s of r ace and i n r et al i at i on f or her f i r st MCAD

char ge, al l i n vi ol at i on of Massachuset t s l aw and Ti t l e VI I . The

MCAD event ual l y di smi ssed Pi na' s second char ge, but pr i or t o that

deci si on, Pi na i ni t i at ed t he pr esent act i on on J ul y 19, 2011.

Af t er t he case was r emoved t o di st r i ct cour t , many of Pi na' s st at e

l aw cl ai ms wer e di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o f i l e wi t hi n t he

l i mi t at i ons per i od and f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. On Mar ch 9, 2012,

Appel l ees moved f or summary j udgment on Pi na' s r emai ni ng cl ai ms:

super vi sor har assment and di scr i mi nat or y f i r i ng i n vi ol at i on of 42

U. S. C. 1981, and r et al i at or y f ai l ur e t o r ehi r e i n vi ol at i on of

bot h 1981 and chapt er 151B of t he Massachuset t s General Laws. On

Mar ch 27, Pi na f i l ed mot i ons t o r eopen Raymond' s deposi t i on, t o

st r i ke Henr y' s af f i davi t , f or an ext ensi on of t i me, and f or l eave

t o f i l e a cr oss- mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Af t er a hear i ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t deni ed Pi na' s di scover y- based mot i ons, and on

March 14, 2013, i t gr ant ed Appel l ees' mot i on f or summary j udgment .

Af t er an unsuccessf ul mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, Pi na' s t i mel y

appeal f ol l owed.

II. Analysis

On appeal , Pi na ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r oneousl y deni ed t hr ee of her di scover y- r el at ed mot i ons: her

mot i on t o r e- open Raymond' s deposi t i on, her mot i on t o st r i ke

Henr y' s af f i davi t , and her mot i on f or an ext ensi on of t i me.

Addi t i onal l y, Pi na ar gues t hat t he cour t er r ed by gr ant i ng

-8-


9/36

Appel l ees' mot i on f or summary j udgment . We begi n wi t h Pi na' s

di scover y- based cl ai ms.

A. Discovery motions

We r evi ew chal l enges t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s di scover y

det er mi nat i ons under an abuse of di scr et i on st andar d. See, e. g. ,

Denni s v. Osr amSyl vani a, I nc. , 549 F. 3d 851, 859 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

I t i s wel l set t l ed t hat "[ a] ppel l at e cour t s sel dom i nt er vene i n

di scover y quest i ons" and t hat " [ t ] he st andar d of r evi ew i n

di scover y mat t er s i s not appel l ant - f r i endl y. " I d. at 860

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Moder n Cont ' l / Obayashi v.

Occupat i onal Saf ety & Heal t h Revi ew Comm' n, 196 F. 3d 274, 281 ( 1st

Ci r . 1999) ) . Accor di ngl y, we "wi l l i nt er vene i n such mat t er s onl y

upon a cl ear showi ng of mani f est i nj ust i ce, t hat i s, wher e t he

l ower cour t ' s di scover y or der was pl ai nl y wr ong and r esul t ed i n

subst ant i al pr ej udi ce t o t he aggr i eved par t y. " I d. ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

1. Motion to reopen Raymond's deposition

The di st r i ct cour t or i gi nal l y i mposed a deadl i ne of

December 16, 2011 f or t he compl et i on of deposi t i ons. Pi na al l owed

t he deadl i ne to l apse and t hen sought permi ss i on t o amend her

compl ai nt t o i ncl ude a f ai l ur e t o r ehi r e cl ai m. The di st r i ct cour t

al l owed t he amendment and set a second deposi t i on deadl i ne of

J anuar y 26, 2012. On J anuar y 24, 2012, Pi na' s counsel deposed

Raymond i n hi s capaci t y as a r epr esent at i ve of TCP pur suant t o

-9-


10/36

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 30( b) ( 6) . 5 Subsequent l y, Raymond

submi t t ed a f our - page er r at a sheet t o cor r ect and cl ar i f y hi s

t est i mony pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 30( e) , whi ch

gi ves a deponent t he oppor t uni t y t o revi ew a deposi t i on t r anscr i pt

and, "i f t her e ar e changes i n f or m or subst ance, t o si gn a

st atement l i st i ng t he changes and t he r easons f or maki ng t hem. "

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 30( e) ( 1) . Pi na ar gued t hat t he changes t o

Raymond' s deposi t i on t est i mony were mater i al and necess i t ated t he

r eopeni ng of hi s deposi t i on, but t he di st r i ct cour t di sagr eed,

gi vi ng r i se t o Pi na' s ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on by denyi ng her mot i on t o r eopen Raymond' s deposi t i on.

By way of suppor t , Pi na ci t es Ti ngl ey Sys. , I nc. v. CSC

Consul t i ng, I nc. , 152 F. Supp. 2d 95, 120 ( D. Mass. 2001) f or t he

pr oposi t i on t hat a deposi t i on may be r eopened where " t he changes

cont ai ned i n t he er r at a sheet s make t he deposi t i on i ncompl et e or

usel ess wi t hout f ur t her t est i mony. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Pi na poi nt s t o t hr ee changes i n Raymond' s t est i mony t hat

she bel i eves show t hat r e- openi ng was r equi r ed. 6 I n t he f i r s t

5 Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 30( b) ( 6) provi des i n r el evantpar t t hat "a par t y may name as t he deponent a . . . cor por at i on. . . and must descr i be wi t h r easonabl e par t i cul ar i t y the mat t er sf or exami nat i on. The [ cor por at i on] must t hen desi gnat e one or mor e

. . . per sons who consent t o t est i f y on i t s behal f . . . . Thepersons desi gnated must t est i f y about i nf ormat i on known orr easonabl y avai l abl e t o t he [ cor por at i on] . " Fed. R. Ci v. P.30(b)(6).

6 Pi na al so cor r ect l y not es t hat a par t y served wi t h a pr operFeder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 30( b) ( 6) not i ce must pr oduce a

-10-


11/36

i nst ance, Raymond changed hi s answer t o a quest i on r egardi ng

whet her t hose reappl yi ng wi t h TCP ar e i nt er vi ewed f r om "Yes,

somet i mes" t o "Yes, when we have a qual i f i ed appl i cant and an open

posi t i on. " Second, when asked whether t he Associ ate Handbook or

Code of Conduct st at ed t hat t he puni shment f or di sr upt i ve and

di sor der l y behavi or was suspensi on and t ermi nat i on, Raymond

or i gi nal l y sai d "I don' t know. " Hi s revi sed answer st at ed t hat

" [ u] naccept abl e behavi or may r esul t i n di sci pl i nar y act i on r angi ng

f r om counsel i ng sessi ons t o i mmedi at e di schar ge as st at ed i n our

Associ at e Handbook. " Fi nal l y, Pi na di r ect s us t o Raymond' s

t est i mony that Henr y had cal l ed hi msayi ng t hat "she r ecei ved t hi s

and di dn' t know what t o make of i t . " I n r esponse t o t he quest i on

"[ d] i dn' t know what t o make of what , " Raymond or i gi nal l y sai d

" [ t ] he al l egat i on t hat she had appl i ed f or t he assi st ant manager

wi t ness who can t est i f y as t o f act s known or avai l abl e t o t hecorporate deponent on t he mat t ers speci f i ed. She t hen compl ai nst hat Raymond was not pr epared t o di scuss ei t her vacanci es at TCPst or es t o whi ch Pi na di d not appl y or what Pi na her sel f sai d whenr eappl yi ng, and t hat t he di st r i ct cour t was t her ef or e r equi r ed t ost r i ke hi s t est i mony as i f he had not appear ed. Pi na, however ,never sought t o pr ecl ude Raymond' s t est i mony, nei t her area ofi nqui r y was i dent i f i ed wi t h r easonabl e par t i cul ar i t y i n t he30( b) ( 6) not i ce, and - - even i f t hi s Ci r cui t el ected t o adopt ar ul e t hat a 30( b) ( 6) wi t ness' s sever e unpr epar edness coul dconst i t ut e const r uct i ve non- appear ance - - Pi na has f al l en wel lshor t of showi ng const r uct i ve non- appear ance i n t hi s case. See

Baker v. St . Paul Tr avel er s I ns. Co. , 670 F. 3d 119, 124 ( 1st Ci r .2012) ( decl i ni ng t o cr eat e a 30( b) ( 6) except i on t o t he r ul e t hat"sanct i ons f or non- appear ance ar e onl y avai l abl e when a deponentl i t er al l y f ai l s t o show up f or a deposi t i on sessi on" i n a casewher e evi dence of unpr epar edness was l i mi t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmarks omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . We need say no more on t hi ssubj ect .

-11-


12/36

posi t i on, and she had gone t o MCAD. " Raymond' s revi sed answer

st at ed:

She was conf used. She ( Ms. Henr y) had no i deaMs. Pi na had appl i ed f or an Ass i st ant Manager

posi t i on at Downt own Cr ossi ng, whi ch di d nothave an Ass i st ant Manager openi ng, and she( Ms. Pi na) was al l egi ng di scr i mi nat i on orr et al i at i on because she was not hi r ed. We di dnot have an Ass i st ant Manager openi ng atDownt own Cr ossi ng.

Pi na t hus concl udes t hat r eopeni ng was r equi r ed si nce the changes

wer e mat er i al , not "mer e ' cor r ect i ons' of st enogr aphi c er r or s, " and

because she needed t o "expl or e t he myr i ad i nconsi st enci es" i n

Raymond' s t est i mony.

I n seeki ng t o advance her ar gument , Pi na has l ost si ght

of t he l aw. Rul e 30( e) does not l i mi t a par t y t o t he cor r ect i on of

st enogr aphi c er r or s; i t per mi t s changes " i n f or m or subst ance. "

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 30( e) ( emphasi s added) ; Gl enwood Far ms, I nc. v.

I vey, 229 F. R. D. 34, 35 ( D. Me. 2005) ( "Changes i n t he subst ance of

a deponent ' s t est i mony are cont empl ated by t he r ul e. " ) . When

wi t nesses makes subst ant i ve changes t o t hei r deposi t i on t est i mony,

t he di st r i ct cour t cer t ai nl y has t he di scret i on t o or der t he

deposi t i ons r eopened so t hat t he revi sed answers may be f ol l owed up

on and t he r easons f or t he cor r ect i ons expl or ed. See Ti ngl ey, 152

F. Supp. 2d at 121 ( per mi t t i ng r eopeni ng wher e r evi si ons

"mat er i al l y al t er [ ed] t he answer s such as t o r ender t hose por t i ons

of t he deposi t i on i ncompl et e absent f ur t her t est i mony") . Her e,

t hough, Pi na i s unabl e t o est abl i sh t hat t he di st r i ct cour t abused

-12-


13/36

t hat di scret i on. The changes at i ssue const i t ut ed cl ar i f i cat i ons

or cor r ect i ons consi st ent wi t h Raymond' s or i gi nal t est i mony. For

exampl e, Raymond' s or i gi nal deposi t i on t est i mony - - l i ke hi s

r evi sed answer s - - i ncl uded st at ement s t o t he ef f ect t hat

i nt er vi ews woul d not be conduct ed absent j ob openi ngs, t hat t her e

were no avai l abl e ASM posi t i ons at t he Downt own Cr ossi ng st ore when

Pi na appl i ed, and t hat t he Associ at e Handbook pr ohi bi t ed Pi na' s

behavi or . I n sum, any changes t o Raymond' s deposi t i on t est i mony

were ei t her not subst ant i ve or were not mater i al t o the summary

j udgment mot i on. Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n

i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng Pi na' s mot i on t o reopen Raymond' s

deposi t i on.

2. Motion to strike Henry's affidavit

Pi na next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by denyi ng

her mot i on t o st r i ke Henr y' s af f i davi t , whi ch Appel l ees f i l ed al ong

wi t h t hei r mot i on f or summary j udgment af t er t he cl ose of

di scover y. Pi na ar gues t hat Henr y was not l i st ed as a pot ent i al

per son wi t h knowl edge i n Appel l ees' i ni t i al di scl osur es as r equi r ed

by Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( a) ( 1) , whi ch i nst r uct s

par t i es t o "pr ovi de t o t he ot her par t i es . . . t he name . . . of

each i ndi vi dual l i kel y t o have di scover abl e i nf or mat i on . . . t hat

t he di scl osi ng par t y may use t o suppor t i t s cl ai ms or def enses. "

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( a) ( 1) ( A) . Because Appel l ees di d not di scl ose

Henr y' s i dent i t y, Pi na cl ai ms t hat she was unabl e t o " t est " Henr y' s

-13-


14/36

asser t i ons vi a cr oss- exami nat i on at deposi t i on. Pi na bel i eves she

was pr ej udi ced as a r esul t , and t hus t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scret i on when i t deni ed her mot i on t o st r i ke Henr y' s af f i davi t . 7

Pi na' s cl ai ms ar e unavai l i ng. Fi r st , t he par t i es'

i ni t i al di scl osur es pr eceded Pi na' s amendment of her compl ai nt t o

i ncl ude t he r et al i at or y f ai l ur e t o r ehi r e cl ai m. Thus, Appel l ees

cannot be f aul t ed f or f ai l i ng t o l i st Henr y bef or e she became

r el evant t o t he case when t he di st r i ct cour t al l owed Pi na' s amended

compl ai nt on J anuary 5, 2012.

Second, al t hough Pi na argues t hat Appel l ees shoul d have

suppl ement ed t hei r di scl osur es t o i ncl ude Henr y once she became

r el evant t o t he case, Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( e) exempt s

a par t y f r omt he suppl ement at i on r equi r ement wher e "t he addi t i onal

or cor r ect i ve i nf or mat i on has . . . ot her wi se been made known t o

t he ot her par t i es dur i ng t he di scover y pr ocess or i n wr i t i ng. "

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( e) ( 1) . TCP f i r st i dent i f i ed Henr y as an

i ndi vi dual r el evant t o Pi na' s f ai l ur e t o r ehi r e cl ai m on J ul y 29,

7 Pi na al so argues that Henr y woul d have made a bet t er 30( b) ( 6)wi t ness t han Raymond because Henr y coul d have t est i f i ed r egardi ngt he avai l abi l i t y of ASM posi t i ons at ot her TCP st or es and t heconver sat i ons Pi na had wi t h TCP empl oyees about her appl i cat i on.We have al r eady di sposed of Pi na' s cl ai m t hat Raymond was anunpr epar ed 30( b) ( 6) wi t ness, see n. 6, and Pi na' s ar gument t hat

Henr y had gr eat er per sonal knowl edge such t hat Appel l ees' sel ect i onof Raymond was sanct i onabl e conduct si mi l ar l y f i nds no basi s i n t hel aw. See Br i ddel l v. St . Gobai n Abr asi ves I nc. , 233 F. R. D. 57, 60( D. Mass. 2005) ( observi ng t hat a 30( b) ( 6) wi t ness may pr oper l y beexpect ed to pr epar e t o t est i f y as t o mat t er s "beyond [ t hose]per sonal l y known t o t hat desi gnee or t o mat t er s i n whi ch t hatdesi gnee was per sonal l y i nvol ved" ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

-14-


15/36

2011 i n i t s MCAD posi t i on st at ement , whi ch was s i gned and ver i f i ed

by Henr y and st at ed t hat " [ t ] he deci si on t o t r ansf er [ a TCP

empl oyee] i nt o t he open A[ S] M posi t i on i n [ t he Downt own Cr ossi ng

st ore] was made by, among others, Ci ndy Henr y, t he di st r i ct Manager

f or t he Bost on Nor t h Di st r i ct . " Raymond l i kewi se t est i f i ed as t o

Henr y' s r ol e i n t he hi r i ng pr ocess dur i ng hi s deposi t i on on

J anuar y 24, 2012, t wo days pr i or t o t he cl ose of di scover y. The

di st r i ct cour t t hus concl uded t hat t her e was no di scover y vi ol at i on

because Pi na knew of Henr y' s r ol e, at t he ver y l at est , on

J anuar y 24, 2012, so t he Rul e 26( e) except i on t o t he

suppl ement at i on r equi r ement appl i ed.

Even assumi ng f or a moment t hat we were i ncl i ned to vi ew

Appel l ees' f ai l ur e t o suppl ement t hei r i ni t i al di scl osur es as a

di scover y vi ol at i on, Pi na has shown onl y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

coul d have st r i cken Henr y' s t est i mony, not t hat such a sanct i on was

necessary i n t hi s case. Poul i n v. Gr eer , 18 F. 3d 979, 985 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) ( " [ E] ven i f def endant s di d commi t a di scover y vi ol at i on,

t he di st r i ct cour t coul d r easonabl y det er mi ne t hat pl ai nt i f f s di d

not suf f er any pr ej udi ce, and, gi ven def endant s' pl ausi bl e

expl anat i on f or t hei r f ai l ur e t o suppl ement , t hat any vi ol at i on was

not wi l l f ul . The di st r i ct cour t di d not , t her ef or e, abuse i t s

di scr et i on when i t . . . al l owed [ t he wi t ness' s] t est i mony. ") . I n

or der t o est abl i sh an abuse of di scret i on mer i t i ng r ever sal , Pi na

must show t hat she was "subst ant i al l y pr ej udi ced" by t he di st r i ct

-15-


16/36

cour t ' s "pl ai nl y wr ong" di scover y r ul i ng. Cur et - Vel zquez v.

ACEMLA de P. R. , I nc. , 656 F. 3d 47, 55- 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " [ T] he

cour t ' s abuse of di scr et i on must have r esul t ed i n pr ej udi ce t o t he

compl ai ni ng par t y. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . She i s

unabl e t o meet t hi s bur den.

To show prej udi ce, Pi na compl ai ns t hat she was unabl e t o

t est t he ver aci t y of Henr y' s swor n asser t i ons t hat she di d not know

of Pi na' s MCAD char ge and t hat no ASM posi t i ons wer e avai l abl e at

t he t i me of Pi na' s appl i cat i on. 8 Thi s ar gument f al l s wel l shor t of

t he mar k. As pr evi ousl y di scussed, bot h st at ement s appear not onl y

i n Raymond' s deposi t i on t est i mony f r omJ anuar y 24t h but al so i n t he

J ul y 29, 2011 MCAD posi t i on st at ement t hat was si gned and ver i f i ed

by Henr y. Pi na' s suggest i on t hat she was sur pr i sed and pr ej udi ced

by t he st atement s when t hey appear ed f or a t hi r d t i me i n Henr y' s

af f i davi t i s t hus di si ngenuous. Cf . Wi l l i ams v. Ci t y of Bost on,

CI V. A. 10- 10131- PBS, 2012 WL 3260261, *4 ( D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2012)

( f i ndi ng i nsuf f i ci ent pr ej udi ce t o mer i t excl usi on wher e "[ wi t ness]

was i dent i f i ed i n pol i ce r ecor ds as t he vi ct i m" such t hat "t he

def endant s knew of her exi st ence, and knew t hat she was a key

wi t ness i n t he case") . Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

8 Pi na al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y af f or dedwei ght and cr edi bi l i t y t o Henr y' s af f i davi t , but t hat cl ai m i spr oper l y consi der ed al ongsi de Pi na' s ot her ar gument s t hat t he cour ter r ed i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment t o Appel l ees.

-16-


17/36

abuse i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed Pi na' s mot i on t o st r i ke Henr y' s

af f i davi t .

3. Rule 56(d) motion

Pi na' s t hi r d and f i nal di scover y- r el at ed cl ai m i s that

t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on when i t deni ed as moot her

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( d) mot i on r equest i ng addi t i onal

t i me t o respond t o TCP' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . 9 By way of

ar gument , Pi na bor r ows heavi l y f r om her f i r st t wo di scover y- based

cl ai ms; she cl ai ms t hat she needed addi t i onal t i me so t hat she

mi ght : 1) depose Raymond agai n subsequent t o hi s f i l i ng of t he

er r at a sheet , and 2) "expl or e whether t her e was any ver aci t y to t he

asser t i ons i n [ Henr y' s] af f i davi t " by means of a deposi t i on, due t o

Appel l ee' s f ai l ur e t o suppl ement t hei r i ni t i al di scl osur e l i st .

Havi ng al r eady f ound t hat t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s

di scr et i on i n denyi ng Pi na' s mot i on t o r eopen Raymond' s deposi t i on,

we f ocus onl y on Pi na' s r emai ni ng cl ai m: she needed more t i me t o

depose Henry.

Pi na begi ns by cor r ect l y not i ng t hat di st r i ct cour t s

shoul d l i ber al l y gr ant Rul e 56 cont i nuances wher e the Rul e' s

pr econdi t i ons f or r el i ef have been sat i sf i ed. Si mas v. Fi r st

Ci t i zens' Fed. Cr edi t Uni on, 170 F. 3d 37, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

9 Pi na r ef er s to Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( f ) , but Rul e56( f ) was r edesi gnat ed Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( d) wel lbef or e Pi na f i l ed her mot i on. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( d) . Wet her ef or e r ef er t o Rul e 56( d) i n our anal ysi s f or t he sake ofcl ar i t y.

-17-


18/36

Typi cal l y, a successf ul Rul e 56( d) mot i on must : 1) be t i mel y; 2) be

aut hor i t at i ve; 3) show good cause f or f ai l ur e t o di scover t he

r el evant f acts ear l i er ; 4) est abl i sh a pl ausi bl e basi s f or

bel i evi ng t hat t he speci f i ed f act s pr obabl y exi st , and 5) i ndi cat e

how t hose f act s wi l l i nf l uence t he out come of summary j udgment .

See i d. at 45 n. 4; Resol ut i on Tr ust Cor p. v. N. Br i dge Assocs. ,

I nc. , 22 F. 3d 1198, 1203 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . Pi na ar gues that she

f i l ed her Rul e 56 mot i on wel l i n advance of t he f i l i ng deadl i ne f or

her opposi t i on t o summary j udgment , t hat she asked f or a reasonabl e

extensi on of t hr ee weeks based upon Appel l ees' f ai l ur e to

suppl ement t hei r i ni t i al di scl osur es, and t hat t he ext ensi on was

cri t i cal t o t he success of her case, so t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on t o deny her mot i on const i t ut ed an abuse of di scr et i on.

As we have of t en obser ved, however , Rul e 56( d) " i s

desi gned t o mi ni st er t o t he vi gi l ant , not t o those who sl umber upon

per cept i bl e r i ght s. " Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover , I nc. v. Am. Bar

Ass' n, 142 F. 3d 26, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and al t er at i on omi t t ed) . Al t hough she now asser t s vi gi l ance i n

act i ng pr ompt l y af t er Appel l ees f i l ed a mot i on f or summar y

j udgment , Rul e 56( d) " r equi r es due di l i gence bot h i n pur sui ng

di scover y bef or e t he summar y j udgment i ni t i at i ve sur f aces and i n

pur sui ng an ext ensi on of t i me t her eaf t er . " Ayal a- Ger ena v. Br i st ol

Myer s- Squi bb Co. , 95 F. 3d 86, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( quot i ng

Resol ut i on Tr ust Cor p. , 22 F. 3d at 1203) . Pi na does not di sput e

-18-


19/36

t he f act t hat she f ai l ed t o r equest a si ngl e deposi t i on pr i or t o

t he cour t ' s i ni t i al deadl i ne of December 16, 2011. Addi t i onal l y,

even i gnor i ng t he MCAD posi t i on st atement and assumi ng Pi na f i r st

l ear ned of Henr y dur i ng Raymond' s deposi t i on, Pi na has of f er ed no

expl anat i on f or her f ai l ur e t o seek per mi ssi on t o depose Henr y f or

over t wo mont hs af t er t hat date.

Mor e si gni f i cant l y, however , Pi na' s Rul e 56 af f i davi t

st at ed as t he basi s f or t he cont i nuance t hat she sought t o "exami ne

Ms. Henr y, under oat h, t o det er mi ne whet her t her e i s any ver aci t y

t o t hese cont ent i ons or whether t hey were manuf act ur ed. " Notabl y

l acki ng f r om t hi s specul at i on as t o Henr y' s ver aci t y i s any

pl ausi bl e basi s f or t he cour t t o concl ude t hat speci f i ed, mat er i al

f act s pr obabl y exi st ed. "A ' Rul e 56( f ) af f i davi t [ t hat ] mer el y

conj ectur es t hat somethi ng mi ght be di scovered but pr ovi des no

r eal i st i c basi s f or bel i evi ng t hat f ur t her di scover y woul d di scl ose

evi dence' i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o del ay summar y j udgment . " Mowbr ay v.

Wast e Mgmt . Hol di ngs, I nc. , 45 F. Supp. 2d 132, 143 ( D. Mass. 1999)

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mat t oon v. Ci t y of Pi t t sf i el d,

980 F. 2d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) ; see al so Ri ver a- Tor r es v.

Rey- Her nndez, 502 F. 3d 7, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( "Specul at i ve

concl usi ons, unanchor ed i n f act s, ar e not suf f i ci ent t o gr ound a

Rul e 56( f ) mot i on. ") . Pi na' s asser t ed desi r e t o "expl or e" i s

per haps mor e accur at el y char act er i zed as a desi r e t o " f i sh, " and i n

ei t her case, i t f al l s wel l shor t of est abl i shi ng ent i t l ement t o

-19-


20/36

Rul e 56( d) r el i ef . See Mowbr ay, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 143 ( denyi ng

Rul e 56( d) mot i on where movant "merel y expr essed a ' hope' or

' hunch' t hat unspeci f i ed f act s mi ght be f ound" because "[ a] l l owi ng

a cont i nuance i n such a case woul d under mi ne t he ent i r e summary

j udgment procedur e") ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The di st r i ct cour t t hus act ed wel l wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on

when i t el ect ed t o deny Pi na' s Rul e 56( d) mot i on.

B. Summary Judgment

Havi ng di sposed of Pi na' s di scover y- based cl ai ms, we tur n

now t o her cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by gr ant i ng

Appel l ees' mot i on f or summary j udgment . We r evi ew a gr ant of

summary j udgment de novo, af f i r mi ng onl y i f " t he pl eadi ngs,

deposi t i ons, answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es, and admi ssi ons on f i l e,

t oget her wi t h t he af f i davi t s, i f any, show t hat t her e i s no genui ne

i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act and t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed

t o a j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477

U. S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . Al t hough we wi l l dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n t he nonmovant ' s f avor , we wi l l not "dr aw unr easonabl e

i nf er ences or cr edi t bal d asser t i ons, empt y concl usi ons, r ank

conj ectur e, or vi t r i ol i c i nvect i ve. " Cabn Her nndez v. Phi l i p

Mor r i s USA, I nc. , 486 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . I t bear s r epeat i ng

t hat genui ne i ssues of mat er i al f act ar e "not t he st uf f of an

opposi ng par t y' s dr eams, " Mesni ck v. Gen. El ec. Co. , 950 F. 2d 816,

822 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) , and a par t y cannot successf ul l y oppose a

-20-


21/36

mot i on f or summary j udgment by r est i ng "upon mere al l egat i ons or

deni al s of hi s pl eadi ng, " LeBl anc v. Gr eat Am. I ns. Co. , 6 F. 3d

836, 841 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I f a

nonmovant bear s t he ul t i mate bur den of pr oof on a gi ven i ssue, she

must pr esent "def i ni t e, compet ent evi dence" suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh

t he el ement s of her cl ai m i n or der t o survi ve a mot i on f or summar y

j udgment . Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 822. Thi s i s no l ess t r ue i n

di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cases wher e mot i ve i s at i ssue; a

nonmovant cannot r el y "merel y upon concl usor y al l egat i ons,

i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Denni s, 549

F. 3d at 855- 56 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Hoeppner v.

Cr ot ched Mount ai n Rehab. Ct r . , I nc. , 31 F. 3d 9, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) .

1. Discrimination

Wher e, as her e, t her e i s no di r ect evi dence of

di scri mi nat i on, a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case

of r ace di scr i mi nat i on under 1981 must successf ul l y navi gat e t he

f ami l i ar McDonnel l Dougl as bur den shi f t i ng f r amewor k. St r aughn v.

Del t a Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 250 F. 3d 23, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) . The bur den

of pr oducti on st ar t s wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f . I n or der t o est abl i sh a

pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat or y t er mi nat i on, a pl ai nt i f f must

show: 1) she was a member of a pr ot ect ed cl ass, 2) she was

qual i f i ed f or her posi t i on, 3) she was subj ect ed t o an adver se

empl oyment act i on, and 4) t he posi t i on r emai ned open or was f i l l ed

by someone wi t h si mi l ar qual i f i cat i ons. I d. Such a showi ng

-21-


22/36

cr eat es a r ebut t abl e pr esumpt i on t hat t he empl oyer engaged i n

di scr i mi nat i on. Thi s i s not t he end of t he mat t er , however , and i f

t he empl oyer i s abl e t o ar t i cul at e a l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y

r eason f or t he ter mi nat i on, t he pr esumpt i on of di scr i mi nat i on

di sappear s. 10 I d. ; see al so LeBl anc, 6 F. 3d at 842. At t he t hi r d

and f i nal st age of t he McDonnel l Dougl as paradi gm, t he bur den of

pr oduct i on r et ur ns t o t he pl ai nt i f f , who must of f er evi dence t hat

t he def endant ' s expl anat i on i s pr et ext ual and t hat di scr i mi nat or y

ani mus prompted t he adverse act i on. Conward v. Cambr i dge Sch.

Comm. , 171 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . The bur den of persuasi on

r emai ns on t he pl ai nt i f f at al l t i mes. Mar i ani - Col n v. Dep' t of

Homel and Sec. ex rel . Cher t of f , 511 F. 3d 216, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Pi na f ai l ed

t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of r ace di scr i mi nat i on under 1981

because she di d not show t hat she was qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on

f r om whi ch she was f i r ed. The cour t went on t o say t hat i n any

10 Addi t i onal l y, t he so- cal l ed "same act or i nf er ence" st at es t hat" [ i ] n cases wher e t he hi r er and t he f i r er ar e t he same i ndi vi dualand t he t er mi nat i on of empl oyment occur s wi t hi n a r el at i vel y shor tt i me span f ol l owi ng t he hi r i ng, a st r ong i nf er ence exi st s t hatdi scr i mi nat i on was not a det er mi ni ng f act or f or t he adver se act i on

t aken by the empl oyer . " LeBl anc, 6 F. 3d at 847 ( quot i ng Proud v.St one, 945 F. 2d 796, 797 ( 4t h Ci r . 1991) ) . The di st r i ct cour tf ound t hat t he i nf erence appl i ed i n t hi s case because Raymond both

hi r ed and f i r ed Pi na wi t hi n t he span of a mont h. Pi na ar gues t hatt he i nf erence does not appl y because Raymond di d not act al one,f i r i ng her onl y af t er consul t i ng wi t h t he human r esour cesdepar t ment . Al t hough we f i nd Pi na' s ar gument unpersuasi ve, we neednot deci de t he mat t er because even wi t hout awardi ng Appel l ees t hebenef i t of t he same act or i nf er ence, as we wi l l expl ai n shor t l y,Pi na' s di scr i mi nat ory t ermi nat i on cl ai m st i l l f ai l s .

-22-


23/36

case, Pi na pr esent ed no evi dence to rebut t he l egi t i mat e,

nondi scr i mi nat or y r easons Appel l ees present ed as t he basi s f or her

t er mi nat i on. The di st r i ct cour t t hus concl uded t hat summar y

j udgment was appropr i at e. Unsat i sf i ed wi t h t hi s r esul t , Pi na l et s

l oose a pr odi gi ous number of ar gument s on appeal , al l of whi ch - -

as we wi l l expl ai n - - ar e mer i t l ess.

We begi n wi t h Pi na' s ar gument t hat she est abl i shed a

pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on because, cont r ar y t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat she was not qual i f i ed f or her

posi t i on, she showed t hat she "was per f or mi ng [ her ] j ob at a l evel

t hat met t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat e expect at i ons" at t he t i me she

was di schar ged. Wi l l i ams v. Fr ank, 757 F. Supp. 112, 116 ( D. Mass.

1991) , af f ' d, 959 F. 2d 230 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . We need not t ar r y

her e. Even assumi ng t hat Pi na est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on, her cl ai mst i l l f ai l s because she cannot show t hat

t he nondi scr i mi nat or y expl anat i on f or her t er mi nat i on ar t i cul at ed

by Appel l ees was pr et ext ual cover f or t hei r t r ue, di scr i mi nat or y

mot i ve.

Appel l ees sat i sf i ed t he second st ep of t he McDonnel l

Dougl as f r amework by produci ng compet ent evi dence t hat Pi na was

t er mi nat ed because she made i nappr opr i at e, unpr of essi onal , and

harassi ng st atement s t o TCP empl oyees t hat were di sr upt i ve and

creat ed saf et y concer ns. Pi na, whi l e di sput i ng t he sever i t y of t he

al l egat i ons, admi t s t hat she accused mul t i pl e TCP empl oyees - -

-23-


24/36

i ncl udi ng her manager - - of havi ng sex wi t h Wi l l i ams. She f ur t her

admi t s t o tel l i ng her manager ' s par t ner , i n f r ont of t he coupl e' s

young chi l d, t hat Tr ench was havi ng sex wi t h Wi l l i ams. Raymond

t est i f i ed t hat mul t i pl e TCP empl oyees r epor t ed concer ns about

Pi na' s behavi or af t er t hese i nci dent s, whi ch pr ompt ed hi m t o

t ermi nate Pi na to ensure a saf e envi r onment f or TCP' s empl oyees.

At t hi s poi nt , t he bur den shi f t ed back to Pi na t o show

t hat Appel l ees' expl anat i on f or her t er mi nat i on was mer e pr et ext

and t hat t hei r t r ue mot i ve was di scr i mi nat or y. To show pr et ext , a

pl ai nt i f f may poi nt t o "weaknesses, i mpl ausi bi l i t i es,

i nconsi st enci es, i ncoher enci es, or cont r adi ct i ons i n t he empl oyer ' s

pr of f er ed l egi t i mat e reasons such t hat a f act f i nder coul d i nf er

t hat t he empl oyer di d not act f or t he asser t ed nondi scr i mi nat or y

r easons. " St r aughn, 250 F. 3d at 42 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Pl ai nt i f f s can use t he same evi dence t o show bot h

pr et ext and di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve, " ' pr ovi ded t hat t he evi dence i s

adequat e t o enabl e a r at i onal f act f i nder r easonabl y t o i nf er t hat

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on was a det er mi nat i ve f act or i n t he adver se

empl oyment act i on. ' " Sant i ago- Ramos v. Cent enni al P. R. Wi r el ess

Cor p. , 217 F. 3d 46, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Thomas v. East man

Kodak Co. , 183 F. 3d 38, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) .

Pi na cl ai ms t hat t he compl ai nt s about her behavi or ar e

mere pr etext and t hat she was f i r ed because she repor t ed mi sconduct

t hat , i f i nvest i gat ed, woul d have r eveal ed an i nt er r aci al

-24-


25/36

r el at i onshi p between TCP empl oyees t hat Appel l ees di d not want t o

acknowl edge. Thi s, Pi na concl udes, const i t ut es a case of

di scr i mi nat or y t er mi nat i on, 11 and Appel l ees' nondi scr i mi nat or y

expl anat i on f or her f i r i ng shoul d be i gnor ed as mer e pr et ext .

To put i t mi l dl y, t he r ecor d does not bear out Pi na' s

cl ai ms. 12 We begi n by not i ng t hat Pi na t est i f i ed t hat she r epor t ed

onl y t i me car d t hef t , not t he exi st ence of an i nt er r aci al

r el at i onshi p, t o TCP. She of f er s not a si ngl e f act t o suppor t her

al l egat i on t hat t he company knew of a r omant i c r el at i onshi p,

i nt er r aci al or ot her wi se, bet ween t he empl oyees Pi na accused. 13

11 Not abl y, Pi na does not cl ai m t hat she was f i r ed because of herr ace or because she engaged i n or support ed an i nt err aci alr el at i onshi p. She r easons t hat because she r epor t ed t he mi sconductof , among ot her s, a bl ack mal e and whi t e f emal e, Appel l ees el ect edt o f i r e Pi na so t hat t hey woul d not have t o i nvest i gat e her r epor tof an i nt er r aci al coupl e' s wr ongdoi ng. Al t hough we quest i onwhet her Pi na' s unusual t heor y of di scr i mi nat i on coul d suppor t a

1981 cl ai m even i f pr oper l y suppor t ed, we need not r each t hati ssue her e, wher e Pi na' s cl ai m cl ear l y l acks t he r ecor d suppor tnecessary t o sur vi ve summary j udgment .

12 A number of Pi na' s argument s on appeal demonst r ate at best at r oubl i ng di sr egar d f or t he r ecor d and at wor st an at t empt t omi sl ead t hi s cour t . For j ust one exampl e, consi der her r epeat edar gument t hat Appel l ees' expl anat i on i s unwor t hy of bel i ef becauseRaymond "admi t t ed t hat Ms. Tr ench and Ms. Pi na had worked t oget herf or some t i me and t hat t he f ormer had never r epor t ed any f ear oft he l at t er . " Raymond' s act ual t est i mony, however , st at ed t hatal t hough Tr ench had not r epor t ed any f ear of Pi na pr i or t o the

Dunki n Donut s i nci dent , on t hat day, she t ol d Raymond t hat shef ear ed Pi na.

13 When pr essed on t hi s poi nt dur i ng her deposi t i on, Pi na mer el yr epeat ed her unsupport ed asser t i on t hat al t hough she di d not r epor ta sexual r el at i onshi p between Gi ordano and Wi l l i ams, " t he companykn[ e] w. They kn[ e] w. "

-25-


26/36

Undaunt ed, Pi na f orges onward t o ar gue that t wo pi eces of evi dence

show t hat Appel l ees' di scr i mi nat or y f eel i ngs about i nt er r aci al

r el at i onshi ps mot i vat ed her t er mi nat i on: 1) Appel l ees vi ol at ed

company pol i cy i n bot h t hei r f ai l ur e t o i nvest i gat e her r epor t and

t hei r deci si on t o f i r e her , and 2) "whi t e men do not l i ke i t when

t hei r women are dat i ng bl ack men. "

We begi n wi t h t he al l egat i on of vi ol at i ons of company

pol i cy and pr ocedur e. I n sum, Pi na ar gues t hat Raymond f ai l ed t o

consi der TCP pol i cy when f i r i ng her and t hat her r epor t of t i me

car d f r aud was not i nvest i gat ed i n accor dance wi t h TCP pol i cy. 14

Pi na cor r ect l y not es t hat Raymond was unabl e t o f i nd a wr i t t en TCP

pol i cy dur i ng hi s deposi t i on t hat st at ed t hat t he use of pr of ani t y

was prohi bi t ed behavi or puni shabl e wi t h t er mi nat i on, but t hi s f act

does not gi ve r i se t o a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat Pi na' s

t er mi nat i on vi ol at ed TCP pol i cy. Raymond' s deposi t i on t est i mony

i dent i f i ed sever al pr ovi si ons of TCP' s Associ at e Handbook t hat he

bel i eved pr ohi bi t ed Pi na' s conduct , i ncl udi ng t he requi r ement s t hat

associ at es must be t r eat ed wi t h di gni t y and r espect and t hat

unaccept abl e behavi or , i ncl udi ng di sr upt i ve or di sor der l y behavi or

14 Pi na f r equent l y r epeat s her accusat i on t hat TCP vi ol at ed t hei rown f ai r empl oyment pol i cy i n f i r i ng her and t hat t hi s i s evi dence

of pr et ext and di scr i mi nat i on, but she of f er s onl y ci r cul arr easoni ng t o suppor t her cl ai ms. Her l ogi c appear s t o be t hat herf i r i ng was an unf ai r pr oduct of r aci al di scri mi nat i on, whi ch i sevi denced by the f act t hat her f i r i ng vi ol at ed a company pol i cyt hat di sci pl i ne must be f ai r and not di scr i mi nat or y. Nei t herr epet i t i on nor ci r cul ar l ogi c i s suf f i ci ent t o el evat e t hi sunsupport ed accusat i on t o t he l evel of competent evi dence.

-26-


27/36

or i nsubor di nat i on, wi l l not be t ol er at ed. Al t hough Pi na ar gues

t hat maki ng di spar agi ng comment s about her cowor ker s and manager

out si de of wor k hour s shoul d not have been cl assi f i ed as di sorder l y

or di sr upt i ve behavi or as she under st ands t he t er ms, t he poi nt i s

i mmat er i al . "Cour t s may not si t as super per sonnel depar t ment s,

assessi ng t he mer i t s- or even t he r at i onal i t y- of empl oyer s'

nondi scr i mi nat or y busi ness deci si ons. " Mesni ck, 950 F. 2d at 825.

Even i f Raymond' s under st andi ng of "di sorder l y or di sr upt i ve"

behavi or was over br oad, t her e i s not hi ng on t he recor d t o suggest

t hat i t was di scr i mi nat or y, t hat he t r eat ed ot her empl oyees who

act ed si mi l ar l y t o Pi na i n a di f f er ent manner , or t hat he vi ol at ed

TCP pol i cy when f i r i ng Pi na.

We t ur n next t o Pi na' s ar gument t hat Appel l ees' f ai l ur e

t o i nvest i gat e her t hef t r epor t , as r equi r ed by company pol i cy,

evi dences a di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve. Accor di ng t o Pi na, TCP pol i cy

di ct at ed t hat r epor t s of i nt er nal t hef t made t o t he company' s

desi gnat ed hot l i ne woul d be f ul l y i nvest i gat ed, meani ng t hat she

woul d be i nt er vi ewed, kept i nf or med about t he st at us of t he

i nvest i gat i on, compensat ed f or her r epor t , and shi el ded f r om

r et al i at i on. Appel l ees' f ai l ur e t o t ake t hese st eps, she cont ends,

shows t hat t hey wer e unwi l l i ng t o f ul l y i nvest i gat e a r epor t t hat

woul d have r eveal ed an i nt er r aci al r el at i onshi p, t hus evi denci ng

t hei r di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve.

-27-


28/36

We cannot agr ee, as "t o reach any such concl usi on on t hi s

r ecor d, a j ur or woul d have t o i ndul ge i mper mi ssi bl y i n unsuppor t ed

specul at i on. " LeBl anc, 6 F. 3d at 846. As an i ni t i al mat t er , Pi na

admi t t ed dur i ng her deposi t i on t hat she coul d not r ecal l maki ng a

hot l i ne r epor t , so her compl ai nt s t hat hot l i ne pr ocedur es wer e not

f ol l owed ar e di f f i cul t t o compr ehend, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of

Raymond' s deposi t i on t est i mony that TCP recor ds show no hot l i ne

cal l s f rom Pi na. 15 See Ar r i ngt on v. Uni t ed St at es, 473 F. 3d 329,

342- 43 ( D. C. Ci r . 2006) ( "Whi l e i t i s admi t t edl y not t he dut y of

di st r i ct cour t s t o wei gh t he credi bi l i t y of t he par t i es' t est i mony

at t he summary j udgment st age, ' i n t he r are ci r cumst ance where t he

pl ai nt i f f r el i es al most excl usi vel y on hi s own t est i mony, much of

whi ch i s cont r adi ct or y and i ncompl et e, i t wi l l be i mpossi bl e f or a

di st r i ct cour t t o det er mi ne whet her . . . t her e ar e any "genui ne"

i ssues of mat er i al f act , wi t hout maki ng some assessment of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s account . ' " ( quot i ng J ef f r eys v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 426

15 Pi na' s i ni t i al MCAD af f i davi t cl ai med t hat she r epor t ed Mowat t ,Gi or dano, and Wi l l i ams t o Fer nndes on J ul y 20, 2007, and t hat shel at er r epor t ed a f our t h i ndi vi dual , a st or e manager , vi a t he TCPhot l i ne on t he day t hat she was suspended. Pi na' s AmendedCompl ai nt , however , made no ment i on of a hot l i ne cal l , and when shewas asked dur i ng her deposi t i on whet her she act ual l y made a cal l t ot he hot l i ne, Pi na conceded t hat she coul d not r emember doi ng so orr epor t i ng a f our t h per son, and she coul d onl y r ecal l r epor t i ng t o

Fer nndes t he al l eged t hef t commi t t ed by Mowat t , Gi ordano, andWi l l i ams. I n her appel l at e br i ef , Pi na now cl ai ms that she di d, i nf act , make a hot l i ne cal l , but not r egar di ng a f our t h per son i n ast or e manager posi t i on as she i ni t i al l y cl ai med. I nst ead, Pi na nowseems t o asser t t hat she made a hot l i ne repor t r egar di ng t he t i mecar d t hef t by Gi ordano and Wi l l i ams. How she came t o t hi s mostr ecent vi ew of event s i s uncl ear .

-28-


29/36

F. 3d 549, 554 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ) ) . Mor e si gni f i cant l y, under mi ni ng

her f r equent asser t i ons t hat TCP f ai l ed t o i nvest i gat e her r epor t

i s Pi na' s own admi ssi on dur i ng her deposi t i on t hat she had no i dea

whet her or not TCP i nvest i gat ed her r epor t . She has gi ven us no

r eason t o doubt Raymond' s t est i mony t hat he and Fer nndes pr ompt l y

and f ul l y i nvest i gat ed Pi na' s r epor t by r evi ewi ng t hr ee weeks of

t i me car ds and i nt er vi ewi ng t he accused, ul t i mat el y det er mi ni ng

t hat t her e was no evi dence t o suppor t Pi na' s cl ai m of t i me car d

f r aud and r el ayi ng t hat f i ndi ng t o human r esour ces. On t hese

f act s, whi ch show t hat Pi na' s cl ai m was i nvest i gat ed, her t heor y

t hat Appel l ees vi ol at ed company pol i cy and f i r ed Pi na because t hey

di d not want t o i nvest i gat e a r epor t t hat woul d have r eveal ed an

i nt er r aci al r el at i onshi p f i nds no suppor t .

Pi na' s f i nal ar gument i n suppor t of her di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m i s t hat whi t e men i n bot h t he past and pr esent di sl i ke

i nt er r aci al r el at i onshi ps bet ween whi t e women and bl ack men. I n

Pi na' s vi ew, t he cour t shoul d have t aken j udi ci al not i ce of t hi s

hi st or i cal f act and deni ed summar y j udgment . At t he r i sk of

r edundancy, we note agai n t hat "conj ectur e cannot t ake t he pl ace of

pr oof i n t he summar y j udgment cal cul us. " Bennet t v. Sai nt - Gobai n

Cor p. , 507 F. 3d 23, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ; see al so Kear ney v. Town of

War eham, 316 F. 3d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "Cr eat i ng a genui ne i ssue

of mat er i al f act r equi r es har d pr oof r at her t han spongy

r het or i c. ") . As t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y hel d, t he hi st or i cal

-29-


30/36

f act t hat many i nt er r aci al coupl es have f aced bi as and pr ej udi ce i s

not evi dence t hat Raymond or anyone at TCP har bor ed such

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus, and Pi na' s at t r i but i on of t hese

di scr i mi nat or y vi ews t o Appel l ees wi t hout any f act ual pr edi cat e or

evi dence t o support her cl ai mdoes not enabl e her t o avoi d summary

j udgment . See Honor v. Booz- Al l en & Hami l t on, I nc. , 383 F. 3d 180,

190- 91 (4t h Ci r . 2004) ( af f i r mi ng gr ant of summar y j udgment t o

empl oyer wher e pl ai nt i f f r el i ed pr i mar i l y on r ef er ences t o t he

nat i onal hi st or y of r aci smt o evi dence empl oyer ' s r aci al ani mus) . 16

Accor di ngl y, because Pi na was unabl e t o rebut Appel l ees'

l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y basi s f or her t er mi nat i on wi t h

evi dence of pr et ext and di scr i mi nat or y mot i ve, t he di st r i ct cour t

pr oper l y gr ant ed summary j udgment t o Appel l ees on Pi na' s cl ai ms of

r ace di scr i mi nat i on. 17 To t he extent t hat Pi na pur por t s t o have

16 I n an ef f or t t o dodge t he swi ng of t he summary j udgment axe,Pi na al so pr of f er s a mi xed- mot i ves t heor y of di scr i mi nat i on,ar gui ng t hat she can pr evai l even i f she shows t hat r acedi scr i mi nat i on was j ust one of a number of r easons f or hert er mi nat i on. As we have j ust expl ai ned, however , Pi na has f ai l edt o pr oduce any evi dence of di scr i mi nat ory mot i ve, so t he mi xed-mot i ve t heor y cannot save her cl ai m.

17 At t he end of her br i ef , i n a sect i on t i t l ed "Super vi sor yLi abi l i t y of Def endant Raymond, " Pi na l ar gel y r epeat s t hedi scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms we have now f ound i nadequate t o survi vesummar y j udgment . She adds onl y t hat Raymond can be hel d

i ndi vi dual l y l i abl e under 1981 f or subj ect i ng her t o r et al i at or yand "di scr i mi nat or y har assment , " appar ent l y i n a desi r e t o advancea host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m based on Raymond' s f ai l ur e toi nt er vi ew Pi na about t he t hef t r epor t and hi s deci si on t o suspendand t er mi nat e her . Thi s under devel oped cl ai m i s qui ckl y di sposedof by Pi na' s own deposi t i on t est i mony, wher ei n she st at ed t hat shewas not harassed whi l e at TCP and that t her e was no i mmedi at e

-30-


31/36

ar t i cul at ed a separ at e cl ai magai nst Raymond f or br each of cont r act

under 1981 on pr eci sel y the same t heor y of r ace di scr i mi nat i on

t hat we have now descr i bed and r ej ect ed, we not e t hat t hi s cl ai m

al so necessar i l y f ai l s. See Ayal a- Ger ena, 95 F. 3d at 95 ( " I n or der

t o pr evai l under Sect i on 1981, a pl ai nt i f f must pr ove pur posef ul

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on . . . . ") .

2. Retaliation

Pi na' s f i nal cl ai m on appeal i s that t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat she f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of

r et al i at or y f ai l ur e t o hi r e i n vi ol at i on of 1981 and

Massachuset t s General Laws, chapt er 151, sect i on 4. 18 Li ke Pi na' s

di scri mi nat i on cl ai m, her r et al i at i on cl ai m i s gover ned by t he

r eact i on t o her r epor t of i nt er nal t hef t . War y of beat i ng t hepr over bi al dead hor se, we add onl y t hat Pi na f ai l s t o so much asal l ege t hat her pur port ed harassment was based on her r ace, and the

f act s she does al l ege f al l wel l shor t of showi ng t he sever i t y,f r equency, and per vasi veness of abuse necessary t o al l ow a host i l ework envi r onment cl ai mt o survi ve summary j udgment . See Bhat t i v.Tr s. of Bos. Uni v. , 659 F. 3d 64, 73- 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

18 I n a par agr aph, Pi na al so assert s t hat she i s not pr ecl uded f r ompur sui ng a cl ai mf or di scr i mi nat or y f ai l ur e t o hi r e si mpl y becauseTCP ul t i mat el y hi r ed an Af r i can- Amer i can f emal e f or t he posi t i on.Whi l e t hi s i s a t r ue enough pr oposi t i on, Pi na has of f er ed not onei ot a of evi dence or ar gument t o suppor t a di scr i mi nat or y f ai l ur e t ohi r e cl ai m. I nst ead, she mer el y not es t hat she f i nds "suspi ci ous"t he f act t hat t he sel ect ed candi dat e was, l i ke her sel f , an Af r i can-

Amer i can f emal e. To t he ext ent t hat Pi na has not wai ved anypot ent i al di scr i mi nat or y f ai l ur e t o hi r e cl ai m by vi r t ue of herf ai l ur e t o devel op i t , see Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct or y manner ,unaccompani ed by some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemedwai ved. " ) , we not e t hat such r ank specul at i on i s ent i r el yi nadequat e t o pr event a gr ant of summary j udgment i n TCP' s f avor .

-31-


32/36

McDonnel l Dougl as bur den shi f t i ng f r amework. See Prescot t v.

Hi ggi ns, 538 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( "The f ami l i ar McDonnel l

Dougl as f r amewor k gover ns Ti t l e VI I , 42 U. S. C. 1981, and

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws, chapt er 151B cl ai ms. " ( r ef er r i ng t o

McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792, 802- 05 ( 1973) ) ) .

Pi na cor r ect l y not es t hat 1981 encompasses ret al i at i on cl ai ms.

CBOCS W. , I nc. v. Humphr i es, 553 U. S. 442, 457 ( 2008) . To

est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on under ei t her 1981 or

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws, chapt er 151B, sect i on 4, a pl ai nt i f f

must est abl i sh t hat : 1) she engaged i n a st at ut or i l y pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y, 2) she suf f er ed an adver se empl oyment act i on, and 3) t he

pr otected conduct and adver se empl oyment act i on are causal l y

connect ed. Novi el l o v. Ci t y of Bost on, 398 F. 3d 76, 88 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ; Pr escot t , 538 F. 3d at 43. Mor e speci f i cal l y, i n r et al i at or y

f ai l ur e t o hi r e cases, a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng t o pur sue an adver se

empl oyment act i on must est abl i sh t hat : 1) she appl i ed f or a

par t i cul ar posi t i on, 2) t he posi t i on was vacant , and 3) she was

qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on. Vl ez v. J anssen Or t ho, LLC, 467 F. 3d

802, 807 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Appel l ees wer e ent i t l ed t o

summary j udgment because Pi na f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e

case of r et al i at i on; she di d not show t hat she appl i ed f or a vacant

posi t i on, t hat she was qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on t o whi ch she

appl i ed, or t hat Henr y had any knowl edge of her MCAD cl ai m. Pi na

-32-


33/36

di sagr ees, argui ng t hat t here was no evi dence there were no

vacanci es, t hat she was qual i f i ed f or an ASM posi t i on because she

compet ent l y wor ked i n t hat r ol e bef or e she was f i r ed, and t hat

Henr y knew of her MCAD cl ai m as a mat t er of l aw.

Pi na' s argument s def y bot h est abl i shed l egal pr ecedent

and l ogi c. Fi r st , Pi na bor e t he bur den of est abl i shi ng t he

exi st ence of a vacant posi t i on; TCP was under no obl i gat i on t o

pr ove t he non- exi st ence of a vacancy. See i d. at 807- 08.

Accor di ngl y, Pi na cannot cr edi bl y expect us t o ent er t ai n her

ar gument t hat Appel l ees' f ai l ur e t o pr ove t hat t her e wer e no

vacanci es i n st ores t o whi ch Pi na di d not appl y somehow shows t hat

she has sat i sf i ed her bur den. Pi na admi t t ed t hat she had no

knowl edge of an ASM posi t i on vacancy at t he t i me she appl i ed f or

t he posi t i on, and Appel l ees have t est i f i ed t hat t her e was no

vacancy unt i l appr oxi mat el y one mont h af t er Pi na appl i ed, at whi ch

t i me an i nt ernal pr omot i on was made and no ext ernal candi dat es were

consi der ed. Al t hough Pi na ar gues t hat TCP was obl i gat ed t o

consi der her appl i cat i on f or a posi t i on t hat opened weeks l at er , we

need not addr ess thi s cont ent i on. Even i f Pi na i s cor r ect , she

never t hel ess has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh at l east t wo addi t i onal

el ement s necessar y t o make out a cl ai m of r et al i at or y f ai l ur e t o

hi r e.

Fi r st , Pi na has not shown t hat she was qual i f i ed f or t he

ASM posi t i on t hat she sought . The f act upon whi ch Pi na r est s her

-33-


34/36

cl ai m of qual i f i cat i on appear s t o be t hat dur i ng her one- mont h

t enur e as an ASM, she per f ormed adequatel y bef ore she was f i r ed f or

i nappr opr i at e behavi or . Appel l ees, however , have cor r ect l y poi nt ed

out t hat Pi na' s appl i cat i on cl ear l y st at es t hat she desi r es an ASM

posi t i on but i s onl y avai l abl e t o wor k f r om 9: 00 a. m. t o 3: 00 p. m.

on Satur days. Accordi ng t o TCP' s St andard Operat i ng Procedur e

r egar di ng st af f i ng, ASMs must be avai l abl e open t o cl ose, i ncl udi ng

on weekends. Pi na t hus f ai l ed t o qual i f y f or t he posi t i on even i f

one had been vacant at t he t i me she appl i ed.

Second, at t he r i sk of pi l i ng on, we not e t hat Pi na has

al so f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a causal connect i on bet ween her pr ot ect ed

conduct and t he adverse empl oyment act i on because she f ai l ed t o

show t hat Henr y knew about t he MCAD char ge Pi na f i l ed t hr ee years

pr i or . See Medi na- Ri ver a, 713 F. 3d at 139; Pomal es v. Cel ul ar es

Tel ef ni ca, I nc. , 447 F. 3d 79, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( " [ T] here must be

pr oof t hat t he deci si onmaker knew of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr ot ect ed

conduct when he or she deci ded to t ake t he adver se empl oyment

act i on. " ) . Pi na ar gues t hat Henr y had t he r equi si t e knowl edge "as

a mat t er of l aw" because Henr y worked f or TCP, whi ch had opposed

t he MCAD char ge Pi na f i l ed mor e than t hr ee year pr i or i n r el at i on

t o event s at a di f f er ent TCP st or e i n a di f f er ent di st r i ct . She

cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t o t he cont r ar y shows

t hat t he cour t engaged i n maki ng i mpr oper wei ght and cr edi bi l i t y

det er mi nat i ons.

-34-


35/36

I t i s wel l - set t l ed t hat a j udge must not engage i n maki ng

cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons or wei ghi ng t he evi dence at t he summar y

j udgment st age, see Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242,

255 ( 1986) , but i t i s equal l y cl ear t hat j udges cannot al l ow

conj ect ur e t o subst i t ut e f or t he evi dence necessar y t o sur vi ve

summar y j udgment , Bennet t , 507 F. 3d at 31. Thus, t he di st r i ct

cour t can har dl y be f aul t ed f or f ai l i ng t o adopt Pi na' s specul at i ve

and unsuppor t ed asser t i on of Henr y' s knowl edge of her MCAD char ge.

I n the absence of any evi dence t hat Henr y or any other TCP empl oyee

i nvol ved i n t he ASM hi r i ng deci si on had knowl edge of Pi na' s

prot ect ed act i vi t y, her ret al i at ory f ai l ure t o hi re cl ai m f ai l s .

The di st r i ct cour t proper l y grant ed summar y j udgment t o Appel l ees

as to Pi na' s ret al i at i on cl ai mi n l i ght of her f ai l ur e t o establ i sh

a pr i ma f aci e case. 19

19 Ther e i s some suggest i on i n Pi na' s br i ef s t hat she bel i eves t hatnot onl y her MCAD compl ai nt , but al so her r epor t i ng of i nt er nalt hef t , const i t ut ed pr ot ect ed act i vi t y under 1981 t hat can gi ver i se t o a r et al i at i on cl ai m. That 1981 r et al i at i on cl ai msencompass at l east some subset of act i vi t i es beyond t he r epor t i ngof di r ect r aci al di scr i mi nat i on i s cl ear . See CBOCS W. , I nc. , 553U. S. at 452, 455- 56 ( al l owi ng a r et al i at i on cl ai mt o pr oceed wher epl ai nt i f f al l eged he suf f er ed r et al i at i on f or assi st i ng anot herper son t o "secur e hi s 1981 r i ght s" ) . However , Pi na ci t es not a

si ngl e aut hor i t y t o suppor t her posi t i on t hat maki ng an i nt er nalt hef t r epor t i n t he hopes t hat an i nt er r aci al coupl e woul d be f i r edso t hat she coul d col l ect company r eward money const i t ut es"pr ot ect ed act i vi t y" under 1981. Fi ndi ng t hat Pi na' s per f unct or yr ef er ences t o t hef t - r epor t - based r et al i at i on ar e unaccompani ed byany devel oped argument , we deem t hemwai ved. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d at17.

-35-


36/36

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t j udgment i s

af f i r med and Pi na' s r equest f or at t or ney' s f ees i s deni ed.

Affirmed.

Pina v. Children's Place, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Pina v. Children's Place, 1st Cir. (2014)