Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

919 chars

“[T]here is no mechanical formula for finding
      pretext.” Che v . Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d
      3 1 , 39 (1st Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
      omitted). Instead, “[i]t is the type of inquiry where
      ‘everything depends on the individual facts.’” Id. at
      40 (quoting Thomas v . Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F.3d 3 8 ,
      57 (1st Cir. 1999)). The inquiry focuses on whether
      the employer truly believed its stated reason for
      taking action adverse to the employee. See Feliciano
      de la Cruz v . El Conquistador Resort & Country Club,
      218 F.3d 1 , 7 (1st Cir. 2000). The plaintiff bears
      “[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact
      that the defendant intentionally discriminated against
      the plaintiff.” Reeves v . Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
      Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000) (alteration in
      original) (internal quotation mark omitted).

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text