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

1,115 chars

That leaves two potential instances of protected activity that could have been causally connected to the disciplinary actions Kelly took against Rolfs, to wit, the complaints Rolfs made to Worcester and to Deveno about Kelly’s behavior. For purposes of ruling on Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment, the court will assume that the P/DN Kelly received on February 10 alerted him to Rolfs’ complaints about him to Worcester and Deve-no. See Medina-Rivera, 713 F.3d at 139 (suggesting that an alleged retaliator’s “awareness [of protected activity] may be shown by circumstantial evidence”). Rolfs, however, has produced no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Kelly knew about Rolfs’ complaints about him any earlier than February 10. Thus, Kelly’s knowledge of those instances of protected activity came after he had issued three of the four P/DNs at issue, but did predate the fourth P/DN and the PIP. In the remainder of this section, the court considers, in turn, retaliation claims based upon the “Come on, Gene” incident and Rolfs’ complaints about Kelly to Worcester and Deveno.9 a. “Come on, Gene"

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text