Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2011

NI COLE PONTE,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

STEELCASE I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udge.

J ohn A. Mar key, J r . , wi t h whom Moses Smi t h & Mar key, LLC wason br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Tr acy Thomas Bol and, wi t h whomMor gan, Br own & J oy, LLP was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J anuar y 31, 2014

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Ni col e Pont e appeal s f r om t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i n f avor of her f or mer

empl oyer , St eel case I nc. , on her cl ai ms under Ti t l e VI I , 42 U. S. C.

2000e et seq. , and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B t hat ( 1) she was

subj ect t o sexual harassment whi l e empl oyed t here, and ( 2) she was

t er mi nat ed i n r et al i at i on f or her r epor t s of such har assment . We

appl y t he but - f or causat i on st andar d announced i n Uni ver si t y of

Texas Sout hwest er n Medi cal Cent er v. Nassar , 133 S. Ct . 2517

( 2013) , t o pl ai nt i f f ' s Ti t l e VI I r et al i at i on cl ai m. We af f i r m.

I .

Because t hi s appeal i s f r oment r y of summary j udgment , we

r eci t e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Pont e, and al so

r el y on undi sput ed mat er i al f act s. See Wi nsl ow v. Ar oost ook Cnt y. ,

736 F. 3d 23, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

St eel case i s a Mi chi gan company t hat manuf act ur es

f ur ni shi ngs and sel l s a var i et y of wor kpl ace pr oduct s and ser vi ces;

i t s sal es ar e pr i mar i l y conduct ed t hr ough i t s deal er s, who ar e

ef f ecti vel y St eel case' s cl i ent s. St eel case, f or i t s heal t hcar e

di vi si on, hi r ed Pont e i n mi d- J une 2010 as an Ar ea Manager i n New

Engl and, and she was empl oyed t here f or l ess t han a year , unt i l May

27, 2011. Pont e was t he onl y Ar ea Manager f or t he New Engl and

r egi on.

Robert Lau, t he Regi onal Manager f or East ern Ar ea

Heal t hcar e Sal es, hi r ed Pont e and was her di r ect super vi sor

-2-


3/27

t hr oughout . 1 Lau and Pont e bot h wor ked f or Nur t ur e, St eel case' s

heal t hcar e di vi si on, but Lau was based i n Kent ucky whi l e Pont e was

based i n Bost on. Lau r epor t ed di r ect l y t o Kyl e Wi l l i ams, head of

Nur t ur e.

Lau i nst r uct ed Pont e t o spend her f i r st ni net y days at

St eel case compl et i ng her t r ai ni ng, "l i st eni ng and l ear ni ng, " and

bui l di ng her r el at i onshi ps wi t h her t hr ee key deal er s: Susan Hughes

at Of f i ce Envi r onment s of New Engl and ( "OENE") , Suzanne Ludl ow at

Busi ness I nt er i ors, and Edward Kuchar at BKM.

Pont e' s per f ormance pr obl ems began al most i mmedi atel y.

I n J une 2010, Mary Chest nut , Pont e' s Human Resour ces cont act , noted

t hat she had r ecei ved f eedback f r omanother St eel case empl oyee t hat

Pont e was havi ng "mor e i ssues" wi t h t he i ni t i al "on- boar di ng"

pr ocess t han ot her r ecent hi r es.

Ear l y on, Lau recei ved sua spont e compl ai nt s about Pont e

f r om one of her deal er s. On J ul y 8, 2010, af t er Pont e f ai l ed t o

at t end a meet i ng at OENE that she had sai d she woul d at t end, Susan

Hughes emai l ed Bob Kel l y, t he CEO of OENE, t o detai l t hat epi sode

and t o out l i ne her gener al pr obl ems wi t h Pont e' s ear l y per f or mance.

I n t he thr ee weeks t hat Pont e had been worki ng, Hughes f ound her t o

1 There were Ar ea Managers i n t he other r egi ons of t hecount r y. Ar ea Manager s ar e r esponsi bl e f or mai nt ai ni ng exi st i ngr el at i onshi ps wi t h key r egi onal deal er s and f or advanci ng sal es ofSt eel case pr oduct s i n t hei r r egi ons. Lau al so super vi sed Ar eaHeal t hcar e Manager s f r om t en ot her r egi ons on t he East coast , i naddi t i on t o Pont e.

-3-


4/27

be " t oo i mpul si ve, maki ng assumpt i ons, not f ol l owi ng t hr ough on

what she says she wi l l do, and not pl anni ng ahead or communi cat i ng

wel l . " Ther e had been " l i t t l e or no pr ep f or any meet i ng I have

at t ended wi t h her . " On J ul y 15, CEO Kel l y f or war ded t hi s emai l t o

Lau.

Two I nci dent s Al l eged t o Be Sexual Har assment

Soon af t er Hughes' s J ul y 8 emai l , Pont e at t ended t r ai ni ng

at St eel case headquar t er s i n Gr and Rapi ds, Mi chi gan. A por t i on of

t he t r ai ni ng was speci f i c t o Nur t ur e empl oyees, whi l e anot her

por t i on of i t was par t of a mor e gener al "Escal at e" t r ai ni ng

pr ogr am, r ecei ved by al l St eel case sal es empl oyees. Af t er t r ai ni ng

ended one eveni ng, Lau, Pont e, and t wo ot her t r ai nees went out f or

di nner . Fol l owi ng di nner , t hough Pont e was set t o go back t o her

hot el wi t h t he ot her t r ai nees, Lau was " per si st ent " t hat Pont e j oi n

hi m i n t he car so t hat he coul d dr i ve her back t o her hot el . Of

t he thr ee t r ai nees, Pont e was t he onl y one who repor t ed t o Lau.

The ot her t wo t r ai nees, Robi n Gol dhawk and J ar ed Mej eur , r epor t ed

t o Benj ami n Pr at t , Lau' s West coast count er par t . Dur i ng t he

r oughl y f i f t een- mi nut e dr i ve t o t he hot el , Lau r eached hi s ar m

ar ound Pont e' s seat t o put hi s hand on her r i ght shoul der , and l ef t

hi s hand t her e f or about a mi nut e. Dur i ng t hat r i de, he emphasi zed

-4-


5/27

t o Pont e t hat he had done a l ot t o get her t hi s j ob, and t hat she

owed hi m t o do " t he r i ght t hi ng by hi m. " 2

Pont e recount ed t he event s of t he car t r i p t o Gol dhawk

and Mej eur . Mej eur t est i f i ed t hat Pont e sai d she "had an

i nt er est i ng car r i de back t o t he hot el " and t hat she had f el t

" t aken aback" by Lau' s act i ons. Gol dhawk t est i f i ed t hat Pont e sai d

"somet hi ng l i ke Rob hi t on her , " but r epor t ed i t t o Gol dhawk on a

di f f er ent eveni ng.

Lat er dur i ng Pont e' s t r ai ni ng i n Gr and Rapi ds, she and

Lau at t ended a di nner wi t h a di f f er ent gr oup of St eel case

empl oyees. Lau agai n i nsi st ed on dr i vi ng Pont e back t o her hot el ,

over her i nsi st ence t hat she had a r i de wi t h ot her t r ai nees. 3

Dur i ng t hi s dr i ve, Lau agai n r eached hi s arm ar ound Pont e t o r est

hi s hand on her shoul der , and kept hi s hand t her e f or t he maj or i t y

of t he f i f t een- t o t went y- mi nut e dr i ve back t o t he hot el . She di d

not r equest t hat he r emove hi s hand. Pont e di d not r epor t t hi s

i nci dent t o her peer s. Nor di d she r epor t ei t her i nci dent at t he

t i me t o St eel case super vi sors. Lau' s act i ons dur i ng t he t wo car

2 Lau admi t s t hat he dr ove Pont e back t o her hot el on oneoccasi on, however he deni es put t i ng hi s armaround Pont e and maki ngcomment s i mpl yi ng t hat she owed hi m f or t he rol e he pl ayed i nget t i ng her t he j ob. Lau l at er t est i f i ed t hat he want ed t o

"under st and how t he t r ai ni ng [was] goi ng, how t he cl ass [ was]goi ng, . . . [ was] she comf or t abl e wi t h t he company and t hecul t ur e. " Because we vi ew t he f act s i n Pont e' s f avor , we assumet hat t hese event s t r anspi r ed as she descr i bes.

3 Lau deni es t hat a second car r i de wi t h Pont e t ook pl ace.Agai n, we assume i t di d.

-5-


6/27

r i des are t he onl y i nci dent s on whi ch Pont e' s sexual har assment

cl ai m rests .

Af t er t he t r ai ni ng i n Gr and Rapi ds, on J ul y 23, 2010, Lau

sent Pont e a br i ef emai l , and t ol d her t hat he had r ecei ved

"[ p] osi t i ve f eedback" f r om Hughes at OENE. Lau al so ar r anged f or

J ohn Cur r y, a Steel case Regi onal Sal es Manager based i n Bost on, t o

meet wi t h and coach Ponte. 4

Four days l at er , on J ul y 27, Pont e cal l ed Chest nut i n

Human Resources and expr essed concerns about l osi ng her j ob,

expl ai ni ng t hat she had bot h been l at e t o and not pr epar ed f or a

meet i ng wi t h t he CEO of OENE. Thi s was separ at e f r om her ear l i er

f ai l ur e t o show up at t he OENE meet i ng wi t h Hughes. Chest nut t ol d

Pont e t hat Pont e' s per f ormance was "not meet i ng expectat i ons, " and

t hat Pont e needed t o di scuss that wi t h Lau. Chest nut of f er ed t o be

a par t of any such meet i ng, but Pont e decl i ned t he of f er . Pont e

does not cl ai m t o have t ol d Chest nut i n t hi s cal l about t he t wo

i nci dent s or t o have made any assert i on of i mpr oper conduct by Lau.

Pont e does not di sput e t hat she and Lau had weekl y phone

cal l s begi nni ng i n August 2010, i n whi ch Lau pr ovi ded Pont e wi t h

coachi ng and suppor t , t hough Pont e' s l at er vi ew was t hat t hese

cal l s wer e i nsuf f i ci ent . The cal l s cont i nued unt i l t he end of

Pont e' s empl oyment . Al so, i n August 2010, Lau arr anged f or Br enda

4 I n t hi s emai l , Lau al so i nf or med Cur r y t hat Pont e had sai dher mot her was suf f er i ng f r om "st age 4 cancer . "

-6-


7/27

Br ewer , a Regi onal Per f or mance Consul t ant , t o assi st Pont e i n her

pr of essi onal devel opment .

Mont hs l at er , Pont e cal l ed Chest nut t o r epor t she was

havi ng pr obl ems wi t h Lau. She does not gi ve a dat e or of f er a

r ecor d of t he cal l , ot her t han she r ecal l ed i t bei ng i n Febr uar y or

Mar ch 2011. I t i s t hi s phone cal l t hat Pont e r el i es upon as t he

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y of r epor t i ng har assment f or whi ch she was

al l egedl y t er mi nated i n May 2011. Pont e t ol d Chest nut t hat she

per cei ved a l ack of suppor t f r om Lau, and t hat she " t hought a l ot

of i t was r el at ed t o somet hi ng t hat happened i n J ul y. " Pont e

t est i f i ed t hat she "di dn' t go i nt o det ai l " about t he J ul y

i nci dent s. She di d not char act er i ze t hem as sexual har assment .

She di d say that she was " i n a posi t i on wi t h Rob [ Lau] wher e [ she]

was al one [ on] a coupl e of occasi ons and [ ] was made t o f eel

uncomf or t abl e. " But Pont e al so t ol d Chest nut t hat she di d not want

t o pur sue t hi s i ssue. She t ol d Chest nut t hat she "di dn' t want t o

get anybody i n t r oubl e but [ ] f el t t hat i t was st i l l i mpact i ng" her

per f or mance. Thi s cal l was seven or ei ght mont hs af t er t he J ul y

event s.

Chest nut t est i f i ed t hat she di d not r ecal l t he speci f i c

cal l Pont e r ecount ed. However , she noted t hat when Pont e di d cal l

Chest nut , i t was t o expl ai n per sonal i ssues r egar di ng Pont e' s

mot her ' s i l l ness, and "not about anythi ng goi ng on at wor k. " We

t ake as t r ue that t he cal l was as Pont e has r ecount ed.

-7-


8/27

On March 2, 2011, Suzanne Ludl ow of Busi ness I nt er i ors,

anot her one of Pont e' s t hr ee maj or deal er s, emai l ed Lau t o expr ess

sever al concer ns and compl ai nt s about Pont e' s j ob per f or mance t o

t hat poi nt . Ludl ow al so not ed i n t he emai l t hat she had spoken t o

Hughes, Pont e' s mai n deal er at OENE, about Pont e and t hat t he two

wer e "on t he same page. "

I n r esponse, Lau spoke wi t h Pont e t he next day about

Ludl ow and Hughes' s compl ai nt s. On March 11 Lau emai l ed hi s not es

about t he meet i ng wi t h Pont e t o hi msel f and t o Chest nut i n Human

Resour ces. The notes say Lau covered wi t h Pont e t he compl ai nt s he

had r ecei ved f r om t he deal er s, r emi nded Pont e of t he cr uci al

i mpor t ance of cl ear communi cat i on, and set out a ser i es of

expect at i ons f or her goi ng f or war d. He al so not ed t hat Pont e

st at ed she f el t t her e was "no basi s" f or t he deal er s' concer ns.

Pont e di d not deny t hese compl ai nt s wer e made, and does not deny

t he conver sat i on wi t h Lau.

On Mar ch 11, Ponte and Lau had another phone

conver sat i on. She sai d t hat she had l ear ned t hat mor ni ng t hat she

had ski n cancer . She al so sai d t hat she had been an hour l at e f or

her meet i ng wi t h Hughes at OENE, due t o t r af f i c. Though Pont e sai d

t hat she had cal l ed Hughes t o l et her know she woul d be l ate,

Hughes was upset and di d not want t o speak wi t h Pont e af t er she was

an hour l at e. Lau' s own not es on t he conver sat i on st at e t hat hi s

-8-


9/27

expect at i on was t hat he and Pont e were t o "make t hi s work" wi t h OENE.

Al so on March 11, 2011, Lau f orwarded t o Chest nut t wo of

hi s ear l i er emai l s about Pont e f r om l at e J ul y 2010. Pont e ar gues

t hat Lau began f or war di ng t hese emai l s t o Chest nut onl y af t er Pont e

spoke t o Chest nut i n Febr uar y or Mar ch about Lau, but t he recor d i s

i nconcl usi ve as t o t i mi ng. By cont r ast , St eel case cont ends that

Lau began f orwardi ng these emai l s t o Chest nut when he was prepar i ng

Pont e' s annual per f ormance r evi ew f or t he per i od endi ng on Febr uary

28, 2011 and i t was cl ear t hat t he revi ew woul d be negat i ve.

St eel case' s evi dence i s t hat Lau' s st andar d pr act i ce was t o i nf or m

Human Resour ces i n advance of gi vi ng an empl oyee a negat i ve revi ew.

Ther e i s no evi dence t o t he cont r ar y.

On March 21, Ponte engaged i n an emai l col l oquy wi t h

Ludl ow and Gar y Lague f r omBusi ness I nt er i or s, one of Pont e' s mai n

deal er s, about an or der f or sever al t ypes of f ur ni t ur e f or an

of f i ce. Pont e pr ovi ded l i st i ngs and pr i ce i nf or mat i on f or

f ur ni t ur e. I n r esponse t o a quest i on about whether bed headboar ds

wer e avai l abl e, Pont e r esponded: " J ust hear d f r oma col l eague t hat

headboar ds CAN be ordered t hr ough speci al s. So, you may want t o

get a quote pr i or t o t he meet i ng Thur sday. " Ludl ow f orwarded

Pont e' s r esponse t o Lau and sai d that she was concerned because i t

"appear s [ Pont e] i s t aki ng t he word of col l eagues" and was not sure

whether her own company car r i ed t hi s pr oduct . Ludl ow sai d she

-9-


10/27

"aut omat i cal l y see[ s] a r ed f l ag her e. " Lau t hen f ol l owed up wi t h

Ludl ow i mmedi atel y t o pr ovi de the i nf ormat i on Ludl ow r equest ed.

A week l ater , pr esumabl y af t er Lau and Pont e had spoken

t o di scuss Ludl ow' s concer ns, Ludl ow emai l ed Lau t o r epor t

posi t i vel y on a cl i ent meet i ng t hat she had at t ended wi t h Pont e.

Ludl ow noted t hat Pont e was "pr epared and r eady" f or t he meet i ng

and t hat t hey wer e "on t he r i ght t r ack. "

Annual Per f ormance Revi ew Pr ocess and Af t ermat h

On Apr i l 21, t he day bef ore Pont e was schedul ed t o have

her per f ormance r evi ew wi t h Lau, she sent Chest nut , at about 8: 30

p. m. , an emai l r equest i ng a per sonal day t he next day ( Apr i l 22) t o

be wi t h her mother , who had been hospi t al i zed. That r equest was

gr ant ed, so Pont e' s per f or mance r evi ew di d not t ake pl ace on Apr i l

22, as pl anned.

I n her emai l , Pont e al so wr ot e:

I enj oy my j ob t hor oughl y and I f eel si ncecomi ng back f r om t he sal es meet i ng i n March,t hat I have been abl e t o wor k st r at egi cal l yand begi n t o bui l d t he necessary r el at i onshi pst hat ar e essent i al t o be successf ul . I havesever al pr oj ect s t hat I have been wor ki ng onand had a r ecent wi n.

She went on t o note t hat she knew t hat Lau "cont i nual l y t al ks about

[ her ] communi cat i on pr obl ems, " but t hat she f el t "he i s not awar e

of t he compl exi t i es of t hi s t er r i t or y and some of t he hi st or i cal l y

di f f i cul t per sonal i t i es t hat exi st and have been di scussed by ot her

St eel case empl oyees. " Pont e expr essed r egr et about her t ar di ness

-10-


11/27


12/27

Wi l l i ams about Lau unt i l al most a mont h l at er , when t he deci si on t o

t er mi nat e her empl oyment had al r eady been made.

Al so on Apr i l 21, Lau f or war ded t o Chest nut an emai l t hat

he had sent t o hi msel f a f ew mi nut es ear l i er , about t wo hour s af t er

Pont e emai l ed Chest nut . The Lau emai l covered f ur t her per f ormance

pr obl ems t hat he was havi ng wi t h Pont e. Speci f i cal l y, af t er Pont e

had expr essed t o hi m her vi ew t hat Lau was not suppor t i ng her , he

r esponded t hat he was goi ng behi nd t he scenes t o ask t he deal ers t o

cont i nue to gi ve Pont e a chance i n her r ol e, and t hat t hey woul d be

di scussi ng t hese i ssues i n her per f or mance r evi ew. He al so voi ced

hi s concer n t hat she was not a good f i t f or her r ol e, and t hat t hey

"need[ ed] t o wor k t hr ough t hi s. "

Pont e cont ends t hat because Lau f orwarded t hi s emai l t o

Chest nut l ess t han t wo hour s af t er Pont e emai l ed Chest nut r egar di ng

Lau, i t suppor t s t he i nf er ence t hat Lau "knew" Pont e was " speaki ng

t o Human Resour ces, " and t hi s suppor t s her cl ai m of r et al i at i on.

However , t her e i s no evi dence that Chest nut ever di scl osed t o Lau

t he cont ent of Pont e' s Apr i l 21 emai l , and Chest nut deni es she di d

so. Lau had begun f orwardi ng hi s notes about Pont e t o Chest nut

over a mont h ear l i er , on March 11.

Pont e took her r equest ed per sonal day on Fr i day, Apr i l

22, post poni ng her per f ormance r evi ew. On t he f ol l owi ng Monday,

Apr i l 25, Lau f or war ded Pont e' s f or mal per f or mance r evi ew t o Kyl e

Wi l l i ams, hi s super vi sor , and expl ai ned t hat Pont e had not been

-12-


13/27

abl e t o have her per f ormance r evi ew on t he schedul ed date because

of her mot her ' s i l l ness.

As Pont e' s di r ect super vi sor , Lau pr epar ed her MAPP

r evi ew5 and pr ovi ded i t t o her . That f or mal r evi ew, f or t he per i od

endi ng on Febr uar y 28, 2011, 6 gave Pont e an over al l r at i ng of

"Bel ow Per f ormance Expect at i ons, " and i n each subcat egory she was

r ated as "Bel ow Obj ect i ve" or "Devel opment Need. " The eval uat i on

not ed t hat t her e "have been consi st ent concer ns f r om a var i et y of

pr of essi onal s r egar di ng Ni col e' s cl ar i t y of communi cat i on, meet i ng

commi t ment s . . . bei ng on t i me, or gani zi ng, and abi l i t y t o

pr i or i t i ze t o become mor e ef f ect i ve. " I n t he sal es por t i on of her

r evi ew, whi ch count ed f or 40% of t he over al l eval uat i on, Pont e' s

r evi ew was poor : t he sal es pl an f or t he regi on was $1. 965 mi l l i on,

and onl y "$680k" of t hose sal es wer e r eal i zed. The eval uat i on

not es t hat St eel case wi l l "eval uat e t hi s [ empl oyee si t uat i on]

cl osel y [ over t he] next 30 days. "

5 The f ormal r evi ew pr ocess f or Ar ea Heal t hcare Managers i sbased on a Measurabl e Annual Per f ormance Pl an ( MAPP) . The MAPP i sbased i n par t on t he empl oyee' s measurabl e sal es obj ect i ves, and i sshar ed wi t h each empl oyee at t he st ar t of t he year so t hat t hey ar eaware of t hei r goal s. The f ormal MAPP per f ormance revi ew documenti s uni f orm across Ar ea Heal t hcare Managers. Once t he manager hascompl et ed t he r evi ew, i t i s shar ed wi t h t he empl oyee; i n or der f or

t he r evi ew t o be mar ked as "compl et e" i n St eel case' s onl i ne r evi ewsyst em, bot h the manager and the empl oyee must si gn of f on i t .

6 St eel case' s MAPP pr ocess r uns on an annual schedul ebegi nni ng each year i n March. Pont e began worki ng at St eel case i nt he mi ddl e of t he 2010- 2011 MAPP year , so her eval uat i on di d notspan a f ul l t wel ve mont hs.

-13-


14/27

Af t er r eadi ng her eval uat i on, 7 Pont e emai l ed Lau on Apr i l

25, 2011, and st at ed t hat she " f el t as t hough t her e wer e not any

sur pr i ses f r om our weekl y di scussi ons. " Pont e' s emai l sai d t hat

she "appr eci at e[ d] t he t r ust and t he r i sk [ Lau] t ook" i n hi r i ng

her , and r ei t er at ed her commi t ment t o i mpr ovi ng i n her j ob.

Fi nal l y, Pont e r evi ewed some of t he det ai l s f or Lau' s upcomi ng

vi si t t o t he New Engl and r egi on and concl uded: " I t hor oughl y enj oy

when you come out t o t he ter r i t or y and l ook f or war d t o your t r i p

her e. "

On May 4, Pont e and Lau were communi cat i ng vi a emai l wi t h

J i m Magui r e, a deal er f r om Of f i ce Concept s. I n r esponse t o a

di r ect r equest , Pont e sent a number of sal es f i gur es. Magui r e

r epl i ed t o bot h Pont e and Lau t hat t he f i gur es wer e i ncor r ect and

i nappl i cabl e t o hi s company. Lau r esponded sol el y t o Pont e: "Not

good t o shar e wr ong i nf or mat i on. Pl ease cor r ect . " Pont e t hen

cor r ect ed her er r or and r e- sent t he cor r ect ed i nf or mat i on soon

after.

Lau vi si t ed t he New Engl and regi on and met wi t h Pont e on

May 12 and 13. Pont e was r esponsi bl e f or pl anni ng t he vi si t .

Af t er war d, Lau emai l ed not es t o hi msel f t hat hi s vi si t was poor l y

organi zed, and t hat he had t ol d Pont e t hat i t coul d have been done

7 The r ecor d i s si l ent on how Pont e r ecei ved her r evi ew;however , Pont e' s Apr i l 25, 2011 emai l t o Lau st at ed t hat she"checked t he appr opr i at e box on the MAPP [ Fi scal Year ] [ 20] 11acknowl edgi ng we r evi ewed t he appr ai sal t ogether . " We assume t hatshe r evi ewed t he document el ect r oni cal l y.

-14-


15/27

i n one day i nst ead of t wo. Lau' s not es al so st at e t hat he t hought

her abi l i t y t o "l ead t he sal es ef f or t [ was] quest i onabl e, " and t hat

she was "pl ayi ng a suppor t r ol e" and "not pr oact i vel y t ar get i ng

account s. " Lau t est i f i ed t hat t he May vi si t was when he began

ser i ousl y consi der i ng t er mi nat i ng Pont e' s empl oyment .

Ter mi nat i on of Pont e' s Empl oyment

Lau made the ul t i mate deci si on t o ter mi nat e Pont e' s

empl oyment , i n consul t at i on wi t h ot her s, as i s nor mal St eel case

pr ocedur e. He di d so af t er consul t i ng wi t h hi s super vi sor Kyl e

Wi l l i ams, wi t h Human Resour ces, and wi t h t he company' s l egal

depar t ment . By May 2011, Chest nut had moved t o a di f f erent r ol e

wi t hi n t he company, and she was r epl aced i n Human Resour ces by Dawn

Waal kes. 8 Ul t i mat el y, Lau concl uded, wi t h Wi l l i ams' f ul l suppor t ,

t hat Pont e' s per f or mance cont i nued t o be unsat i sf act ory and t hat

t he best cour se of act i on was t o t ermi nate her empl oyment .

By May 20, 2011, Pont e had been not i f i ed t hat Lau and

Waal kes were t r avel i ng t o Bost on t o meet wi t h her on May 27. She

t hen emai l ed Wi l l i ams t o r equest a phone conver sat i on wi t h hi m; she

st ated t hat she had r eached out t o Chest nut and ot hers about her

"concerns about Rob" and t hat she "shar ed what happened wi t h Robi n

[ Gol dhawk] and J ared [ Mej eur ] about some pr i vat e i ssues t hat

8 Bef ore t he deci si on t o t ermi nate Pont e' s empl oyment wasmade f i nal , Waal kes consul t ed wi t h Chest nut r egar di ng Pont e' shi st or y at St eel case. Chest nut t est i f i ed t hat she spoke t o Waal kesabout Pont e, but t hat she di d not par t i ci pat e i n any conver sat i onat whi ch the f i nal deci si on about t er mi nat i on was made.

-15-


16/27

happened. " She agai n di d not descr i be any sexual l y har assi ng

conduct .

Wi l l i ams f orwarded t hi s emai l t o Waal kes, who r esponded

t hat Pont e had al so cal l ed her on May 20. Waal kes' s vi ew was t hat

Pont e of f er ed "a l ot of excuses and bl ami ng of ot her s f or t hi ngs

t hat haven' t gone wel l . " Pont e had gi ven Waal kes a l i st of peopl e

who Pont e f el t woul d cor r obor at e her vi ew. The l i st i ncl uded

Ludl ow, who had pr evi ousl y cr i t i ci zed Pont e' s wor k, but not

Gol dhawk or Mej eur .

A f ew days l ater , on May 24, Pont e emai l ed Lau, Waal kes,

and Wi l l i ams aski ng f or advance i nf ormat i on as t o her upcomi ng

meet i ng wi t h Lau and Waal kes. Speci f i cal l y, she r equest ed a shor t

agenda i dent i f yi ng t he most i mpor t ant i ssues and i nci dent s t hat

were t o be di scussed. She al so asked t hat she be permi t t ed t o t ape

r ecor d t he meet i ng so t hat she woul d be abl e t o "accur at el y recal l

and underst and t he f eedback" pr ovi ded.

I n r esponse to t hi s emai l , al so on May 24, Wi l l i ams

emai l ed Waal kes and Lau t o ask whether , gi ven t hese emai l s, Pont e' s

" t one of sur pr i se[ , ] and t he cur r ent l ack of an i mmedi at e

r epl acement , " St eel case was "r ushi ng t hi s t er mi nat i on. " Wi l l i ams

cl ar i f i ed t hat he di d not di sagr ee wi t h t he deci si on t o t er mi nat e

her . Waal kes r esponded about an hour l at er and st at ed t hat af t er

consul t i ng wi t h Chest nut and Lau, she was " convi nced t hi s [ wa] s t he

appr opr i at e next st ep. "

-16-


17/27

On May 27, Lau and Waal kes met wi t h Ponte and t er mi nat ed

her empl oyment . Lau i nf or med her t hat " t hi ngs weren' t wor ki ng. "

The f or mal exi t document she was gi ven st at ed t hat t he r eason f or

her t er mi nat i on was her unaccept abl e l evel of sal es per f or mance.

Af t er Lau l ef t t he room, l eavi ng Waal kes and Pont e al one to deal

wi t h var i ous Human Resour ces mat t ers, Pont e di d not ment i on any

i nci dent s of sexual har assment .

Af t er her t er mi nat i on, Pont e f i l ed sui t i n Massachuset t s

Super i or Cour t f or Suf f ol k Count y on December 12, 2011, asser t i ng

cl ai ms of sexual har assment and unl awf ul r et al i at i on under bot h

Ti t l e VI I and Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapter 151B. Steel case

r emoved t he case t o f eder al cour t on di ver si t y gr ounds. St eel case

moved f or summary j udgment on al l count s at t he cl ose of di scover y.

On J ul y 25, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on i n f ul l ,

and t hi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I .

Our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y

j udgment i s de novo, and we draw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor

of t he nonmovi ng par t y. Bose Cor p. v. Ej az, 732 F. 3d 17, 21 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . "Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate when t here i s no

genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Cor t s- Ri ver a v. Dept . of Cor r . &

Rehab. of t he Comm. of P. R. , 626 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

-17-


18/27

A. Sexual Harassment and Host i l e Work Envi r onment Cl ai m

Pont e ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n concl udi ng

t hat no reasonabl e j ur or coul d concl ude that t he two i nci dent s wer e

sever e or pervasi ve enough t o cr eat e a host i l e work envi r onment . 9

To prevai l on a host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m, a

pl ai nt i f f must est abl i sh:

( 1) t hat she ( or he) i s a member of apr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 2) t hat she was subj ect ed t ounwel come sexual harassment ; ( 3) t hat t heharassment was based upon sex; ( 4) t hat t hehar assment was suf f i ci ent l y sever e orper vasi ve so as t o al t er t he condi t i ons ofpl ai nt i f f ' s empl oyment and cr eat e an abusi vewor k envi r onment ; ( 5) t hat sexual l yobj ect i onabl e conduct was bot h obj ect i vel y andsubj ect i vel y of f ensi ve, such t hat a r easonabl eper son woul d f i nd i t host i l e or abusi ve andt he vi cti m i n f act di d per cei ve i t t o be so;and ( 6) t hat some basi s f or empl oyer l i abi l i t yhas been est abl i shed.

For r est v. Br i nker I nt ' l Payr ol l Co. , 511 F. 3d 225, 228 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( quot i ng Cr owl ey v. L. L. Bean, I nc. , 303 F. 3d 387, 395 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) ) . For br evi t y, we wi l l assume t hat Lau' s conduct i n t he

t wo car r i des wi t h Pont e sat i sf i es t he f i r st t hr ee el ement s of t he

t est . Sur el y a new f emal e empl oyee f eel i ng her super vi sor ' s

unwel come ar m ar ound her shoul der as he i nsi st ed on dr i vi ng her

9 Whi l e Pont e br i ngs cl ai ms under bot h Ti t l e VI I and

Massachuset t s st ate l aw, she does not ar gue t hat t he t wo cl ai msshoul d be t r eat ed di f f er ent l y. The Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci alCour t has sai d t hat i t i s " our pr act i ce t o appl y Feder al case l awconst r ui ng t he Feder al ant i - di scri mi nat i on st at ut es i n i nt er pr et i ngG. L. ch. 151B. " Wheat l ey v. Am. Tel & Tel . Co. , 636 N. E. 2d 265,268 (Mass. 1994) ; see al so Bour beau v. Ci t y of Chi copee, 445 F.Supp. 2d 106, 111 ( D. Mass. 2006) .

-18-


19/27

al one back t o her hot el af t er wor k woul d f eel ver y uncomf or t abl e.

However , di scomf ort i s not t he t est . See Oncal e v. Sundowner

Of f shor e Ser vs. , I nc. , 523 U. S. 75, 81 ( 1998) ( not i ng t hat Ti t l e

VI I was not i nt ended t o be a "gener al ci vi l i t y code" f or t he

wor kpl ace) .

The f act or s we r evi ew i n assessi ng whet her har ass i ng

t r eat ment meet s t he "sever e or per vasi ve" st andar d i ncl ude " t he

sever i t y of t he conduct , i t s f r equency, whet her i t i s physi cal l y

t hr eat eni ng or not , and whet her i t i nt er f er ed wi t h t he vi ct i m' s

wor k per f or mance. " Ger al d v. Uni v. of P. R. , 707 F. 3d 7, 18 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . Ther e wer e t wo occasi ons of i nappr opr i at e behavi or i n

J ul y 2010; Gol dhawk, Pont e' s peer , descr i bed Pont e' s assessment as

an i nci dent of Lau "hi t t i ng on" Pont e. Whi l e hi s physi cal cont act

wi t h Pont e was i nappr opr i at e, as was t he subt l e hi nt t hat she owed

Lau f or hi r i ng her , i t ended qui ckl y. I n t he next t en mont hs Pont e

di d not exper i ence any ot her i nappr opr i at e or har assi ng conduct ,

al t hough Lau was physi cal l y pr esent wi t h her on more t han one

occasi on. Nor di d any of hi s communi cat i ons by emai l or phone

cont ai n any har assi ng l anguage. Lau' s obj ect i onabl e conduct was

not per vasi ve by any measure.

I t i s t r ue t hat i sol at ed i nci dent s may, "i f egr egi ous

enough, suf f i ce t o evi nce a host i l e wor k envi r onment . " Novi el l o v.

Ci t y of Bost on, 398 F. 3d 76, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . But her e, Pont e

does not show t hat her cont act wi t h Lau i n Gr and Rapi ds was

-19-


20/27

egr egi ous, or so egr egi ous as t o evi nce a host i l e wor k envi r onment .

I t was not sever e enough t o cause her even t o use t he t erm "sexual

har assment " i n compl ai ni ng about i t t o Chest nut mont hs l at er . On

t he scal e of what has been r ecogni zed as egr egi ous conduct r i si ng

t o t he r equi r ed l evel , t hi s was not cl ose. See, e. g. , Oncal e, 523

U. S. at 77, 81 ( hol di ng t hat a mal e empl oyee worki ng on an oi l

pl at f or m had a cause of act i on f or a host i l e wor k envi r onment

agai nst hi s mal e cowor ker s who subj ect ed hi m t o "sex- r el at ed,

humi l i at i ng act i ons" and t hr eat ened hi m wi t h r ape) ; Bi l l i ngs v.

Town of Gr af t on, 515 F. 3d 39, 47- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( r eversi ng a

gr ant of summary j udgment i n f avor of empl oyer on a host i l e work

envi r onment cl ai m wher e super vi sor r epeat edl y and egr egi ousl y

st ared at a f emal e empl oyee' s breast s on many occasi ons over a

mul t i - year per i od) ; Mar r er o v. Goya of P. R. , I nc. , 304 F. 3d 7, 19

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( af f i r mi ng j ur y f i ndi ng of a host i l e wor k

envi r onment wher e f emal e pl ai nt i f f was subj ect t o "har assment on a

dai l y basi s, i ncl udi ng humi l i at i ng sexual r emar ks and i nnuendos, "

f or over a year ) ; Cr owl ey, 303 F. 3d at 397 ( af f i r mi ng Ti t l e VI I

j udgment i n f avor of f emal e empl oyee wher e a f our - mont h per i od of

a coworker ' s unwant ed t ouchi ng and i nnuendo cul mi nated i n hi s

br eaki ng i nt o t he empl oyee' s home and accost i ng her) ; O' Rour ke v.

Ci t y of Pr ovi dence, 235 F. 3d 713, 718- 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( r ei nst at i ng a host i l e wor k envi r onment ver di ct i n f avor of f i r e

depar t ment ' s f i r st f emal e f i r ef i ght er wher e one cowor ker

-20-


21/27

"const ant l y di scussed sexual posi t i ons and or al sex, " and anot her

"bl ew i n her ear , r ubbed hi s cheek agai nst her s, and st ood over her

wi t h t hei r bodi es squarel y t ouchi ng as she made copi es, " among

ot her t hi ngs) .

No reasonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude that t hese i nci dent s

"amount [ ed] t o a change i n t he ' t erms and condi t i ons of

empl oyment , ' " Far agher v. Ci t y of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 788

( 1998) , or cr eat ed a host i l e wor k envi r onment . The r ecor d does not

suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he t wo i nci dent s i nt er f er ed wi t h Pont e' s

j ob per f or mance. At most , Pont e t est i f i ed t hat Lau' s behavi or

[ i ] mpacted t he r el at i onshi p t hat I f eel Ineeded t o have i n t hi s rol e. I know t hat i nt hi s r ol e t hat i t was a bi g oppor t uni t y wi t h al ot of r esponsi bi l i t i es t hat I know I neededcoachi ng i n. . . . Because we di dn' t have agood r el at i onshi p t hat ul t i mat el y i mpact ed myr ol e and my per f or mance.

Thi s does not st at e a cl ai m t hat har assment i nter f er ed wi t h her

per f or mance. What she r ef er s t o as a l ack of a good r el at i onshi p

i s not , on t he r ecor d, t i ed t o any har assment . Cf . Pomal es v.

Cel ul ar es Tel ef ni ca, 447 F. 3d 79, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( af f i r mi ng

summar y j udgment wher e t here was no evi dence t hat t he compl ai ned of

conduct negat i vel y af f ected t he pl ai nt i f f ' s abi l i t y t o per f or mher

j ob f unct i ons) .

Summary j udgment i s an "appr opr i ate vehi cl e f or

' pol i c[ i ng] t he basel i ne f or host i l e envi r onment cl ai ms. ' " I d. at

83 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Mendoza v. Bor den, I nc. , 195

-21-


22/27

F. 3d 1238, 1244 ( 11t h Ci r . 1999) ( en banc) ) . Pont e' s cl ai m f al l s

bel ow our est abl i shed basel i ne, and we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

gr ant of summar y j udgment i n St eel case' s f avor .

B. Ret al i at or y Ter mi nat i on Cl ai ms

Pont e' s second cl ai m i s t hat her t er mi nat i on was, r at her

t han a r esul t of her per f or mance pr obl ems, a r et al i at or y response

t o her compl ai nts t o Chest nut about Lau. The Supr eme Cour t

r ecent l y hel d as t o Ti t l e VI I r et al i at i on cl ai ms t hat "[ t ] he t ext ,

st r uctur e, and hi st or y of Ti t l e VI I demonst r at e t hat a pl ai nt i f f

maki ng a ret al i at i on cl ai m under 2000e- 3( a) must est abl i sh that

hi s or her pr ot ect ed act i vi t y was a but - f or cause of t he al l eged

adver se act i on by t he empl oyer . " Uni v. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ct r . v.

Nassar , 133 S. Ct . 2517, 2534 ( 2013) . I t r ej ect ed t he l ess

st r i ngent st andar d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f must show onl y that

r et al i at i on was a "mot i vat i ng" f act or . On t hi s r ecor d, no

r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d r each t he concl usi on t hat t hi s but - f or

st andar d has been met .

Ret al i at or y t er mi nat i on cl ai ms based on ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence ar e eval uat ed usi ng t he McDonnel l Dougl as bur den- shi f t i ng

f r amework. Geral d, 707 F. 3d at 24. To make a pr i ma f aci e showi ng

of r et al i at i on, t he pl ai nt i f f must show t hat she engaged i n

pr otected conduct , t hat she suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on,

and t hat a causal nexus exi st s bet ween t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and

t he adver se act i on. I d. Ther e i s no quest i on t hat Pont e suf f er ed

-22-


23/27

an adverse empl oyment act i on; we addr ess t he other r equi r ement s i n

t ur n.

Pont e ar gues t hat her Febr uary- March 2011 phone cal l t o

Chest nut sayi ng she was uncomf ort abl e wi t h Lau' s behavi or was

pr ot ect ed conduct , as t he cal l cont ai ned what a f act f i nder coul d

concl ude was an i mpl i ci t compl ai nt of har assment . 10 The cal l , whi ch

came sever al mont hs af t er t he i nci dent s, was f ar f r om a cl ear

compl ai nt about har assi ng behavi or . See Fant i ni v. Sal em St at e

Col l . , 557 F. 3d 22, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "The t er m pr ot ected

act i vi t y r ef er s t o act i on t aken t o pr ot est or oppose st at ut or i l y

pr ohi bi t ed di scr i mi nat i on. " ( quot i ng Cr uz v. Coach St or es I nc. , 202

F. 3d 560, 566 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

But Pont e' s r epor t t o Chest nut di d not "go i nt o det ai l " and di d not

i ndi cate t hat she f el t she had been sexual l y har assed. We ar e

doubt f ul t hat she engaged i n pr otected conduct , but we do not r est

on t hat ground.

Even assumi ng t hat Pont e' s cal l t o Chest nut const i t ut ed

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, Pont e has f ai l ed t o make a pr i ma f aci e case.

10 I n her br i ef , Pont e al so at t empt s t o char act er i ze her Apr i l21 emai l t o Chest nut as pr otect ed conduct , but t hat emai l does notqual i f y. I t does not compl ai n of sexual har assment at al l . The

conduct compl ai ned of i n t hat emai l - - a l ack of suppor t f r om Lau,her super i or - - i s not pr ohi bi t ed by Ti t l e VI I , 42 U. S. C. 2000e-( 3) , or by chapt er 151B of t he Massachuset t s General Laws. SeeWal ker v. Ci t y of Hol yoke, 523 F. Supp. 2d 86, 113 ( D. Mass. 2007)( not i ng t hat conduct i s not pr ot ect ed i n a r et al i at i on cont extwher e i t does not al l ege an empl oyment pr act i ce pr ohi bi t ed byei t her st at ut e) .

-23-


24/27

A r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d not f i nd t her e was a causal nexus

between Pont e' s vague st atement s t o Chest nut and t he t ermi nat i on of

her empl oyment i n May 2011. Pont e argues t hat t he r el at i vel y shor t

per i od of t i me between her Febr uary- March 2011 cal l t o Chest nut and

her t er mi nat i on i n May 2011 suppor t s t he i nf er ence that t hi s r epor t

caused her t er mi nat i on. " [ C] hr onol ogi cal pr oxi mi t y does not by

i t sel f establ i sh causal i t y, part i cul ar l y i f ' [ t ] he l arger pi ct ure

under cut s any cl ai m of causat i on. ' " Wr i ght v. CompUSA, I nc. , 352

F. 3d 472, 478 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Soi l eau v. Gui l f or d of Me. , I nc. , 105 F. 3d 12, 16 ( 1st

Ci r . 1997) ) . Her e, t he l ar ger pi ct ur e qui t e cl ear l y under mi nes

Pont e' s cl ai m.

Fi r st , i t i s not ewor t hy but not i t sel f concl usi ve t hat

Pont e' s per f ormance pr obl ems began bef ore t he harassi ng i nci dent s

t ook pl ace. Bef or e her t r ai ni ng i n Gr and Rapi ds, Pont e' s t r oubl e

get t i ng up t o speed i nt ernal l y was noted by Mary Chest nut of Human

Resour ces. I ndeed, one of Pont e' s mai n deal ers, Susan Hughes of

OENE, compl ai ned about Pont e' s per f ormance as ear l y as J ul y 8,

2010.

Second, t he compl ai nt s about Pont e' s per f ormance came

f r ompeopl e ot her t han Lau, f r ommen and women who worked di r ect l y

wi t h her . Nor di d t he compl ai nt s go onl y t o Lau. They went al so

t o Chest nut . I n f act , Lau ar r anged f or Pont e t o get per f or mance

assi st ance f r omBr enda Br ewer and J ohn Cur r y. Ther e i s no evi dence

-24-


25/27

t hat Lau, who sel dom saw Pont e f ace- t o- f ace and who communi cat ed

wi t h her pr i mar i l y vi a phone and emai l , pr event ed Pont e f r om

per f or mi ng wel l i n her j ob.

Fur t her , Pont e admi t t ed she had f ai l ed of t en and was

havi ng pr obl ems per f or mi ng her j ob. As ear l y as her J ul y 27, 2010

cal l wi t h Chest nut , she i ndi cat ed an ear l y concer n about l osi ng her

j ob and r ecount ed an i nst ance wher e she was l at e t o and unprepar ed

f or a meet i ng wi t h OENE' s CEO. Ni ne mont hs l ater , Pont e emai l ed

Lau t hat based on t hei r weekl y conver sat i ons, she "f el t as t hough

t her e wer e not any sur pr i ses" i n her negat i ve per f or mance r evi ew.

As t o t i mi ng, her per f ormance r evi ew advi sed Pont e t hat her

si t uat i on woul d be moni t or ed "cl osel y" over t he next t hi r t y days.

Her empl oyment t ermi nat i on was r oughl y one mont h l at er .

I n t hat mont h, she di d not r edeem her sel f . Pont e made a

mi st ake wi t h a deal er when she sent hi m i ncor r ect sal es

i nf or mat i on, as t he deal er poi nt ed out t o her and Lau.

Fur t her mor e, ot her s asi de f r om Lau shar ed t he vi ew i t was t i me to

t er mi nat e her empl oyment . Lau' s super vi sor Kyl e Wi l l i ams si gned

of f on t he deci si on, as di d Waal kes f r om Human Resour ces, as di d

St eel case' s l egal depar t ment . 11 Af t er consul t i ng wi t h Lau and

11 The r et al i at i ng par t y must be awar e of t he pr ot ect edact i vi t y t hat he i s bel i eved t o be r et al i at i ng agai nst . SeeMedi na- Ri ver a v. MVM, I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 139 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .Pont e ur ges us t o f i nd i t r easonabl e t o i nf er Lau' s awar eness oft hese speci f i c r epor t s f r omt he f act t hat Lau t ol d her t hat he knewshe was speaki ng t o Human Resources. The r ecord does not suppor tsuch an i nf er ence, as Chest nut deni ed rel ayi ng Pont e' s compl ai nt s

-25-


26/27

Chest nut , Waal kes was "convi nced" t hat t ermi nat i on was the cor r ect

cour se of act i on.

Even i f she had made a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on,

whi ch she di d not , St eel case met i t s bur den t o est abl i sh a

"l egi t i mat e, non- r et al i at or y" r eason f or t he t er mi nat i on, so t he

f i nal bur den r est s wi t h Pont e t o show t hat t hi s pr of f er ed r eason

was mere pr etext . Al var ado v. Donahoe, 687 F. 3d 453, 458 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ( quot i ng Roman v. Pot t er , 604 F. 3d 34, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . She has not met t hi s bur den.

The pret ext i nqui r y f ocuses on t he empl oyer , and whet her

t he empl oyer bel i eved t hat i t s st at ed r eason f or t he ter mi nat i on

was cr edi bl e. See Mel ndez v. Aut ogermana, I nc. , 622 F. 3d 46, 53

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . For a pl ai nt i f f t o "i mpugn t he ver aci t y" of t he

empl oyer ' s pr of f er ed r eason i s i nsuf f i ci ent ; i nst ead, a pl ai nt i f f

must pr of f er speci f i c f act s t hat woul d enabl e a r easonabl e

f act f i nder t o concl ude t hat t he empl oyer ' s r eason f or t er mi nat i on

was a "sham" i nt ended t o cover up the empl oyer ' s t r ue mot i ve.

Mesni ck v. Gen. El ec. Co. , 950 F. 2d 816, 824 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

Pont e f al l s wel l shor t of t hi s t hr eshol d, f or t he r easons we have

ampl y di scussed.

Pont e makes a pr etext argument t hat t he "$680k" of sal es

she was credi t ed wi t h i n her eval uat i on was ar t i f i ci al l y r educed

about Lau t o Lau. Regar dl ess, such an i nf er ence woul d not , on t hi sr ecor d, meet t he causal st andar d.

-26-


27/27

f or t he pur pose of her eval uat i on, and t hat her r egi on' s sal es i n

f act t ot al ed $1. 23 mi l l i on. St eel case pr ovi ded unr ebut t ed evi dence

t hat t he di f f erence between t he $680, 000 and $1. 23 mi l l i on was due

t o a st andar d adj ust ment t o St eel case' s r egi onal sal es number s due

t o a deal er cal l ed "Fens. " Fens i s a deal er wi t h l ocat i ons i n

Nor t h Car ol i na, At l ant a, and upst at e New Yor k, but i t pl aces al l of

i t s or der s t hr ough Bost on. As a r esul t , al l of t he Fens sal es ar e

i ni t i al l y credi t ed t o t he New Engl and r egi on. Lat er , t he sal es

cr edi t s are real l ocat ed t o the regi ons t o whi ch t he Fens order s

act ual l y shi p, and t he Bost on sal es t ot al s ar e r educed accor di ngl y.

Thi s i s a r easonabl e busi ness pract i ce and not evi dence of

r et al i at or y appl i cat i on of i t s r ul es. The evi dence i s t hat Pont e

and her peer s i n ot her r egi ons under st ood t hi s pol i cy, and t hat al l

of t he r el evant sal es dat a was avai l abl e t o t hem. Pont e di d not

obj ect t o t he "$680k" f i gur e at any poi nt dur i ng t he eval uat i on

pr ocess. Pont e does not deny t hi s.

I I I .

We af f i r m ent r y of summary j udgment . Cost s ar e awarded

t o St eel case.

-27-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents