Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Torruella and Barron, Circuit Judges,
and Lisi,* District Judge.
Parker
are
former
Corporation ("Boulevard").
employees
of
the
Boulevard
Motel
- 2 -
The
Landergren.
In the course of the defendant's resulting investigation
of the incident, the plaintiffs each also made oral and written
statements
about
it
resources manager.1
to
Ignacio
Mello,
the
defendant's
human
- 3 -
maintenance worker.
against him.
More than three weeks later, on June 2, 2010, each
plaintiff sent another written statement to Mello.
Parker's
to
investigation.
protect
the
accused
harasser
during
the
had with the victim and Landergren the day before, during which
the victim had accused Landergren of, among other things, only
caring about "saving [the accused harasser]."
In 2011, both plaintiffs were terminated from their
employment by the defendant.
- 4 -
summary
judgment
in
each
case,
contending
that
neither
In
initial
report
of
harassment,
and
that
the
letters
the
v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 811 F.3d 36, 49 (1st Cir. 2016), in
which we made clear that no "broad-based job duties exception"
applied under the MWPA.
- 5 -
Id. at 51.
followed.
II.
Before turning directly to our review of the District
Court's order, we need to provide some background regarding both
the applicable law and the arguments that the parties are making
on appeal.
an
adverse
employment
action;
and
(3)
causal
actions
constitutes
the
potentially
qualifying
- 6 -
"report[]"
under
833(1)(A).
the
MWPA.
See
Me.
Rev.
Stat.
tit.
26,
its part, does not appear to contest that we may evaluate the
plaintiffs' course of conduct as a whole in determining whether
that initial report qualifies as protected activity.
course,
the
District
Court
concluded
that
the
Thus,
- 7 -
her "report was made to shed light on and 'in opposition to' [the
defendant]'s potential illegal acts."
Id.
once
again,
whether
the
plaintiffs
engaged
in
protected
activity under the statute. And although the District Court relied
on a job duties exception in ruling that the plaintiffs did not,
the defendant concedes that -- at least after Harrison -- the
plaintiffs can show that they engaged in protected activity so
long as they can show that their initial report was made in
opposition
to
the
maintenance
worker's
harassment,
which
the
- 8 -
Walsh, 821 F.3d at 161, we must now decide what the evidence shows
regarding whether the plaintiffs' initial report to their employer
was made "in opposition to" the harassment being reported.
See
Our review is de
novo, and we must "view[] the facts in the light most favorable to
the non-moving part[ies]," the plaintiffs.
Id.
III.
The defendant contends that, even under Harrison, the
evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims that they engaged in
protected activity under the MWPA and under 4633 of the MWPA is
insufficient to permit the plaintiffs' claims to survive summary
judgment.
- 9 -
[the
accused
harasser]'s
actions
or
concern
about
evidence
that
the
plaintiffs
acted
with
the
requisite
oppositional intent.
But, as we have explained in an analogous context,
opposition to unlawful activity may take forms other than express
statements of opposition.
their
views
to
their
employers
through
'purposive
conduct.'"
Cty.,
Tenn.,
555
U.S.
271,
281
(2009)
(Alito,
J.,
- 10 -
handled
evidence
--
by
the
defendant.
considered
as
They
whole
--
contend
supports
that
this
reasonable
defendant,
by
contrast,
contends
that
even
viewing
the
We disagree.
The record shows that Pippin and Parker did more than
simply facilitate the victim's lodging of her complaint and then
cooperate with the ensuing investigation.
reveals
that
three
weeks
after
that
investigation
into
the
The record then shows that, the next day, Pippin and
- 11 -
to
Mello
recounting
ongoing
concerns
that
their
co-
Pippin
plaintiffs,
shows
that
the
plaintiffs
were
fired
after
- 12 -
motivation
in
reporting
information,
[although]
those
The plaintiffs'
See Ballew
- 13 -
common sense"); United States v. Smith, 680 F.2d 255, 260 (1st
Cir. 1982) ("Neither juries nor judges are required to divorce
themselves of common sense . . . .").
See Rubinovitz v.
- 14 -
- 15 -