Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8728300/rolfs-v-home-depot-usa-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,185 chars

Specifically, Rolfs alleges that he engaged in protected activity by: (1) opposing Kelly’s suggestions that he have sex with his female customer during the “Come on, Gene” incident; (2) complaining to Worcester in December of 2009 about Kelly’s harassment and retaliation;7 (3) complaining to Deveno in February of 2010 about Kelly’s harassment; and (4) filing a charge with the HRC in April of 2010. Rolfs alleges that Kelly retaliated against him by: (1) “administering] unfounded PDNs ... to justify putting [him] on a PIP to deprive him of his earned performance bonuses,” First Am. Compl. (doc. no. 5) ¶ 70(b); (2) subjecting him to a retaliatory hostile work environment and depriving him of “supportive, problem-solving, constructive criticism designed to help [him] and his store succeed and meet sales goals and profit margins,” id. ¶ 70(b); (3) making “a mockery of The Home Depot’s performance improvement process, and refusing] to acknowledge [his] performance toward the unjustified performance improvement goals,” id. ¶ 70(c); and (4) “leaking] his PIP status to members of management in other stores in the district,” after he filed his complaint with the HRC, id. ¶ 72.

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text