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

1,211 chars

That a series of minor retaliatory actions may,
    when considered in the aggregate, satisfy the
    McDonnell Douglas prima facie “adverse action”
    requirement, is settled law in this Circuit. See,
    e.g., Noviello [v. City of Boston], 398 F.3d [76,] 91
    [(1st Cir. 2005)] (holding that “subjecting an
    employee to a hostile work environment in retaliation
    for protected activity constitutes an adverse
    employment action”); see also Billings v . Town of
    Grafton, 515 F.3d 3 9 , 54 n.13 (1st Cir. 2008). But,
    as the third prima facie factor commands, it is
    similarly accepted that alleged retaliatory actions
    against an employee must bear a causal connection to
    some protected conduct in order to establish a prima
    facie claim that rests on a hostile work environment
    theory. Consequently, “[i]t is only those actions,
    directed at a complainant, that stem from a
    retaliatory animus which may be factored into the
    hostile work environment calculus.” Noviello, 398
    F.3d at 9 3 . Alvarado, 687 F.3d at 458-59. While “a series of minor retaliatory actions may, when considered in the aggregate, satisfy the McDonnell Douglas prima facie adverse action

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text