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

429 chars
As with the retaliation claim based upon “Come oh, Gene,” Home Depot also argues that Rolfs cannot carry his burden on the issue of pretext. Home Depot is correct. The discussion of pretext in the previous section applies with full force to Rolfs’ claim that Kelly issued him the March 16 P/DN and placed him on a PIP because he had complained about his in-store boorishness and his party rant to Worcester and Deveno. c. Summary