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

1,345 chars

Rolfs’ complaint identifies four instances of protected activity. But, it is undisputed that Rolfs filed his HRC complaint after Kelly imposed the PIP, which means that Kelly could not have imposed the PIP (or issue the P/DNs that precipitated the PIP) in retaliation for Rolfs’ HRC complaint. See Pearson v. Mass. Bay. Transp. Autk, 723 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir.2013) (“Causation moves forward, not backwards, and no protected conduct after an adverse employment action can serve as the predicate for a retaliation claim.”) (citing Sullivan v. Raytheon Co., 262 F.3d 41, 49 (1st Cir.2001)). At the other end of the time line, Kelly gave Rolfs his first P/DN after the “Come on, Gene” incident. Moreover, it is indisputable that Kelly was aware of that incident, and Kelly’s knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to establish causation. See Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132, 139 (1st Cir.2013) (“Obviously too, the employee must show that the retaliator knew about [his or] her protected activity — after all, one cannot have been motivated to retaliate by something he [or she] was unaware of.”) (citing Alvarado v. Donahoe, 687 F.3d 453, 458-59 (1st Cir.2012); Lewis v. Gillette Co., 22 F.3d 22, 24 (1st Cir.1994)); Pearson, 723 F.3d at 42 *215(explaining that an alleged retaliator’s “knowledge alone cannot provide the causal link”).

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text