Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text

900 chars
Based upon the undisputed evidence, it seems fair to conclude that rather than inhibiting Rolfs from complaining about discrimination, the P/DNs, and even the imposition of a PIP, actually inspired him to do so. Moreover, Rolfs’ pattern of responding to P/DNs and his PIP by complaining, almost immediately, about Kelly’s sexually oriented behavior calls to mind the First Circuit’s explanation for why an alleged retaliator’s mere knowledge of protected conduct is not enough to establish the causation element of a retaliation claim: “Were the rule otherwise, then a disgruntled employee, no matter how poor his performance or how contemptuous his attitude toward his supervisors, could effectively inhibit a well-deserved discharge by merely filing, or threatening to file, a discrimination complaint.” Pearson, 723 F.3d at 42 (quoting Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 828 (1st Cir.1991)).