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

1,824 chars

In several of his communications with Worcester and Deveno, and in his memorandum of law, Rolfs has argued that Kelly, Deveno, and Home Depot *221should have used different metrics to evaluate his performance. But, “mere questions regarding the employer’s business judgment are insufficient to raise a triable issue as to pretext.” Pearson, 723 F.3d at 41 (quoting Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., 696 F.3d 128, 140 (1st Cir.2012)); see also Espinal, 693 F.3d at 35 (citation omitted). The only possible exception to that rule would be a situation in which an employer bases an adverse employment action on a business decision that is so ridiculous as to render the employer’s purported reliance upon that decision unworthy of credence. See Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of Am,., 711 F.3d 34, 46 (1st Cir.2013) (citing Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)); see also Gómez-González v. Rural Opps., Inc., 626 F.3d 654, 662-63 (1st Cir.2010) (“Pretext can be shown by such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.”) (quoting Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir.1997)). As Rolfs has done nothing more that suggest that his performance should have been evaluated in terms of his store’s profit margins rather than in terms of its appearance, or the customer service provided by its employees, he has come nowhere close to providing a basis from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the reasons given for Rolfs’ P/DNs and his PIP are unworthy of credence.

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text