Flood v. Bank of America Corporation, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Flood v. Bank of America Corporation, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1068 SHELLY L. FLOOD,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

KERI FLOOD,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.BANK OF AMERI CA CORPORATI ON; FI A CARD SERVI CES, N. A. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees,

ABM J ANI TORI AL SERVI CES NORTHEAST, I NC. ,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Sel ya, and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Mar shal l J . Ti nkl e, wi t h whom Hi r shon Law Gr oup, PC wason br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Car ol i ne F. Tur cot t e, wi t h whom Al i ce A. Kokodi s andEdwards Wi l dman Pal mer LLP were on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

Febr uary 27, 2015


2/25

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Shel l y Fl ood ( "Fl ood") al l eges

t hat her f ormer empl oyers, Bank of Amer i ca Corporat i on and FI A Card

Ser vi ces, N. A. ( col l ect i vel y, t he "Bank") , subj ected her t o a

speci al set of r ul es and st andar ds, and ot her wi se di scr i mi nat ed

agai nst her , because of her bi sexual i t y. When Fl ood coul d no

l onger endur e t he di spar ate t r eat ment at t he Bank, she st opped

r eport i ng t o work and the Bank t ermi nated her f or j ob abandonment .

She br ought t hi s act i on agai nst t he Bank f or empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on under t he Mai ne Human Ri ghts Act ( "MHRA") and f or

t wo speci es of def amat i on under Mai ne common l aw. Adopt i ng t he

magi st r at e j udge' s r ecommendat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

summary j udgment t o the Bank on al l count s and Fl ood appeal ed. We

now vacate summary j udgment as t o t he wr ongf ul t ermi nat i on and

host i l e wor k envi r onment por t i ons of Fl ood' s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m

and af f i r m as t o Fl ood' s ot her cl ai ms.

I.

The f act s ar e present ed i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o

t he nonmovi ng par t y, Fl ood, dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

her f avor . Mar t i nez- Bur gos v. Guayama Cor p. , 656 F. 3d 7, 11 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011)

Fl ood was a cust omer ser vi ce empl oyee at t he Bank' s 24-

hour cal l cent er i n Bel f ast , Mai ne f r omJ ul y 24, 2006 t o Oct ober 1,

2010. I n March 2009, she t ook on a new r ol e at t he cal l cent er

t hat r equi r ed her t o handl e a l arger cal l vol ume. That same mont h,

-2-


3/25

Fl ood met Ker i Fl ood ( "Ker i ") , an empl oyee of ABM J ani t or i al

Ser vi ces Nor t heast ( "ABM") who cl eaned at t he cal l cent er wher e

Fl ood worked. Fl ood and Ker i began dat i ng i n Oct ober 2009. They

woul d f r equent l y spend t hei r br eak t i mes t ogether and Ker i woul d

somet i mes dr op by Fl ood' s desk t o l eave a soda or t al k f or t wo or

t hr ee mi nut es.

The al l eged ant agoni st i n t hi s sui t i s Di ana Cast l e, a

seni or of f i ci al at t he Bel f ast br anch who over saw 200 associ at es,

i ncl udi ng Fl ood, and Fl ood' s i mmedi at e super vi sors, J er emy Tr eneer

and Mi chel l e Tabbut t . Cast l e was al so Fl ood' s ment or i n t he Bank' s

ment or i ng pr ogr amf or f emal e empl oyees.

The preci pi t at i ng event occur r ed i n Apr i l 2010, when

Cast l e and Fl ood were at a bank soci al event where Fl ood was

si t t i ng at t he LGBT t abl e. Cast l e came over t o t he t abl e and saw

a phot o of Fl ood and Ker i embr aci ng at a l ocal bar . Accor di ng t o

Fl ood, Cast l e t hen gave her a l ook of shock and wal ked away. Fl ood

bel i eves t hi s was t he f i r st t i me Cast l e became awar e of Fl ood' s

sexual or i ent at i on. Af t er seei ng t he phot o, Cast l e cont act ed t he

sponsor of t he LGBT t abl e t o compl ai n t hat t he pi ct ur e was

i nappr opr i at e because i t depi ct ed al cohol ; t he sponsor t hen r emoved

t he phot o f r om t he pr emi ses. Fl ood not es t hat no phot os of

het erosexual coupl es were r emoved.

Pr i or t o t he Apr i l phot o i nci dent , Cast l e had engaged

wi t h Fl ood i n a f r i endl y manner . Af t er war ds, t hough, she wi t hhel d

-3-


4/25

pl easant r i es and smi l es i n t he hal l , made di spar agi ng r emar ks about

Fl ood' s hai r and eat i ng habi t s, and gl ar ed at Fl ood. Dur i ng t hei r

ment or i ng meet i ngs, Cast l e began t o i nqui r e about Fl ood' s

r el at i onshi p wi t h Ker i . When Cast l e woul d see Ker i and Fl ood i n

each ot her ' s company, she cast what Fl ood percei ved t o be

di sappr ovi ng l ooks at t hemand made comment s about "al ways" seei ng

t hem t oget her .

Fl ood al so not i ced a change i n t he r ecept i on t o her j ob

per f or mance. I n Mar ch 2010, Tabbut t began assi st i ng Treneer wi t h

empl oyee eval uat i ons. I n Apr i l 2010, r oughl y concur r ent wi t h t he

phot o i nci dent , Fl ood began r ecei vi ng what she per cei ved t o be

undul y cr i t i cal f eedback on her wor k. Al t hough her 2009

eval uat i ons had been posi t i ve, she was now r ecei vi ng "does not

meet " gr ades on cal l s t hat she bel i eves woul d have been gr aded

"wow" bef ore.

Ther e wer e ot her changes as wel l . Al t hough co- wor ker s

of t en di scussed t hei r per sonal l i ves ( i ncl udi ng f r equent t al k of

pl ans f or Tabbut t ' s Summer 2010 weddi ng) , Fl ood was i nst r uct ed t o

keep conver sat i ons about her per sonal l i f e ( i ncl udi ng t al k of her

own Summer 2010 commi t ment cer emony wi t h Ker i ) "of f t he f l oor . " I n

addi t i on, empl oyees who shar ed Fl ood' s j ob t i t l e wer e rout i nel y

per mi t t ed t o t ake t i me of f t he phone t o at t end meet i ngs of t he

Bank' s var i ous af f i ni t y gr oups. I n l at e J ul y or ear l y August 2010,

-4-


5/25

however , Cast l e t ol d Fl ood t hat she coul d no l onger t ake t i me of f

t o at t end t he LGBT af f i ni t y gr oup meet i ngs.

The most over t conf l i ct bet ween Fl ood and Cast l e occur r ed

when Cast l e of f er ed Fl ood cer t ai n advi ce, ost ensi bl y t o hel p Fl ood

at t ai n her goal of becomi ng a manager . Br i ef soci al vi si t s f r om

co- worker s or par t ners were not uncommon at t he cal l cent er . But

i n l at e J ul y or ear l y August 2010, Cast l e t ol d Fl ood t hat , f or

"per cept i on" pur poses, i t was "not a good i dea t o have [ her ]

gi r l f r i end hangi ng at [ her ] desk. " Cast l e added t hat i t woul d be

bet t er f or Ker i t o hear i t f r om Fl ood t han f r om Ker i ' s boss, a

st at ement Fl ood i nt er pr et ed as a thr eat t o cont act Ker i ' s

super vi sor at ABM. Al t hough Fl ood and Ker i kept t hei r di st ance at

wor k af t er t hat , Cast l e st i l l compl ai ned t o ABM' s l i ai son at t he

Bank, and Ker i r ecei ved a ver bal war ni ng f r om ABM l at er t hat

August . I n addi t i on, Tabbut t woul d st and up and watch Fl ood and

Ker i whenever Ker i ' s wor k br ought her i n Fl ood' s vi ci ni t y.

Fl ood, upset , cont act ed Cast l e' s super vi sor , Br i an Ki ng,

and asked i f she shoul d r epor t harassment t o t he Bank' s Advi ce &

Counsel Depart ment . Ki ng sai d no, and i nst ead ar r anged a meet i ng

wi t h Cast l e and Fl ood i n whi ch he t ol d Cast l e she woul d no l onger

be Fl ood' s ment or , t hat Cast l e shoul d not have r el ayed her concer n

about Ker i t hr ough t he ABM l i ai son, and t hat Cast l e shoul d cont act

ABM t o apol ogi ze. Af t er t hi s meet i ng, Ker i never t hel ess recei ved

a wr i t t en memor i al i zat i on of her ver bal war ni ng f r om ABM.

-5-


6/25

Event s seemed t o escal at e f r om t her e. I n August 2010,

Cast l e demanded, i n Fl ood' s pr esence, t hat Treneer gi ve Fl ood a

ver bal war ni ng f or an er r or on Fl ood' s l oan r evi ew sheet , and

Tr eneer di d so. The er r or had been on Fl ood' s r evi ew sheet f or t wo

weeks and had gone unment i oned. Fur t hermore, Fl ood was easi l y abl e

t o pr ove she had nothi ng t o do wi t h t he account and t hat t he er r or

shoul d not have been at t r i but ed t o her .

That same month, Fl ood r ecei ved a posi t i ve mi d- year

r evi ew f r omTr eneer . 1 Never t hel ess, she r ecei ved a wr i t t en "ver bal

war ni ng" on Sept ember 7 f or f ai l ur e t o meet her pr oduct i vi t y goal s

i n Apr i l , J une, and J ul y. Fl ood had t hought t hat she had met her

pr oduct i vi t y goal s f or t hose mont hs because Tabbut t had pr e-

appr oved a number of of f - t he- phone ( "aux") hour s, whi ch woul d be

credi t ed as pr oduct i ve t i me i n t he cal cul at i on of Fl ood' s

pr oduct i vi t y l evel s. However , i n Sept ember , Cast l e r et r oact i vel y

r ecl assi f i ed a number of t hose hour s f r om pr oduct i ve t o

unpr oduct i ve, r educi ng Fl ood' s ef f i ci ency st at i st i cs and r esul t i ng

i n t he war ni ng. I n or der t o i ssue t he war ni ng, Cast l e al so

cont act ed t he Bank' s Advi ce & Counsel Depar t ment and t ol d t hemt hat

Fl ood had r ecei ved a pr i or war ni ng i n J une; t her e i s, however , no

evi dence i n t he r ecor d of a J une warni ng. The Sept ember warni ng

1 Al t hough t he eval uat i on was posi t i ve over al l , Tr eneer not edi n at l east t wo pl aces t hat Fl ood needed t o i mpr ove her ef f i ci ency.

-6-


7/25

t hr eat ened t hat f ai l ur e t o meet expect at i ons coul d l ead t o

t er mi nat i on.

Af t er r ecei vi ng t he wr i t t en "ver bal war ni ng, " and wi t h

Tr eneer ' s approval , Fl ood began appl yi ng f or posi t i ons i n ot her

depar t ment s at t he Bank. But Cast l e cont act ed at l east one

r ecr ui t er t o say t hat Fl ood had t r oubl e meet i ng her cur r ent goal s

and was not r eady f or mor e r esponsi bi l i t y.

On Sept ember 21, Fl ood l ear ned t hat Tabbut t had once

agai n r at ed one of her cal l s "does not meet . " Fl ood bel i eved she

was bei ng hel d t o a hi gher st andar d t han ot her Seni or Cr edi t

Anal yst s and t hat she woul d soon be f i r ed. Lat er t hat day, t her e

was a t eam meet i ng wi t h Tabbut t t o di scuss goal s f or t he mont h.

Af t er t he meet i ng, conver sat i on t ur ned t o Tabbut t ' s br i dal shower .

The conversat i on i ncl uded ment i on of a peni s shot gl ass , l i nger i e,

t est ost erone, and a mal e t eammember as a " buck" and t he f emal es as

hi s "does. " Al t hough Fl ood r epeatedl y asked t o be excused f r omt he

conver sat i on, Tabbut t t ol d Fl ood t hat she coul d "deal . " Fl ood f el t

t hat Tabbut t was f l aunt i ng t he f act t hat Fl ood was not per mi t t ed t o

di scuss her own per sonal l i f e at wor k.

Af t er t he cr ude conver sat i on, Fl ood f el t she coul d t ake

no mor e. She came t o wor k on September 22 t o wr ap up cer t ai n

mat t ers and di d not come back. Tabbut t and Cast l e each cal l ed

Fl ood on t he t el ephone, but Fl ood f el t t oo di st r aught t o answer .

Tr eneer sent Fl ood a l et t er on Sept ember 27 sayi ng t hat he woul d

-7-


8/25

assume she had vol unt ar i l y resi gned i f he di d not hear f r omher i n

t hr ee days. On Sept ember 30, Fl ood sent a l et t er t o Cast l e

expl ai ni ng t hat she bel i eved she had been t r eat ed di f f er ent l y

because of her sexual or i ent at i on and conveyi ng t he emot i onal t ol l

i t had t aken on her . I n ear l y Oct ober , Fl ood saw on her comput er

t hat she had been t ermi nated f or havi ng abandoned her j ob.

Throughout Oct ober , Fl ood and member s of t he Bank' s Human Resour ces

Depart ment l ef t phone messages f or each ot her , but never connected.

On November 4, t he Bank sent Fl ood a l et t er " t o i nf or m [ her ] t hat

[ her ] empl oyment was t ermi nated on Oct ober 1, 2010 f or Vol unt ary

J ob Abandonment . "

Fl ood f i l ed di scr i mi nat i on char ges agai nst t he Bank wi t h

t he Mai ne Human Ri ght s Commi ssi on ( "MHRC") , whi ch i ssued her a

r i ght t o sue l et t er . She t hen br ought sui t agai nst t he Bank i n t he

Mai ne Super i or Cour t al l egi ng ( a) empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on i n

vi ol at i on of t he MHRA and ( b) def amat i on under Mai ne common l aw.

The case was r emoved t o f eder al cour t on t he basi s of di ver si t y

j ur i sdi ct i on. Af t er di scover y, t he Bank moved f or summar y

j udgment . I n a l engt hy deci si on, t he magi st r at e j udge i ssued a

r ecommendat i on t o gr ant t he mot i on and t he di st r i ct cour t af f i r med

t he r ecommendat i on summari l y. Thi s appeal f ol l owed. 2

2 Thi s appeal onl y concer ns Fl ood' s cl ai ms because Ker i hasset t l ed al l of her cl ai ms. We t her ef or e t r eat Fl ood as i f she hadbeen t he sol e pl ai nt i f f and conf i ne our di scussi on of Ker i ' s caset o a br i ef summar y. Cast l e r epor t ed t o var i ous Bank secur i t ypersonnel t hat Ker i had been physi cal l y bumpi ng i nt o a pr egnant

-8-


9/25

II.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment

de novo. Hi cks v. J ohnson, 755 F. 3d 738, 743 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e onl y i f t her e i s no genui ne di sput e

as t o any 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. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) . A genui ne

di sput e i s one t hat a r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d r esol ve i n f avor

of ei t her par t y and a mat er i al f act i s one t hat coul d af f ect t he

out come of t he case. Ger al d v. Uni v. of P. R. , 707 F. 3d 7, 16 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . A par t y' s asser t i on t hat a f act i s or i s not genui nel y

di sput ed must be suppor t ed by ci t i ng t o "mat er i al s i n t he recor d,

i ncl udi ng deposi t i ons, document s, el ect r oni cal l y st or ed

i nf or mat i on, af f i davi t s or decl ar at i ons, st i pul at i ons . . . ,

admi ssi ons, i nt er r ogat or y answer s, or other mat er i al s. " Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 1) ( A) . I n deci di ng whet her t her e i s a genui ne

di sput e about a mat er i al f act , we vi ew t he recor d " i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y, dr awi ng al l r easonabl e

Bank associ at e i n t he hal l s and t hat Ker i at t empt ed t o t r i p t heassoci at e i n a st ai r wel l wi t h a vacuumcor d. The Bel f ast br anch' spr ot ect i ve servi ces manager i nvest i gat ed t he cl ai m. He knew Ker iand had not known her t o behave i n such a manner . Nei t her di dvi deo f oot age of t he st ai r wel l cor r obor at e what Cast l e hadr epor t ed. But t he pr ot ect i ve servi ces manager i nt er vi ewed t he

associ at e i n quest i on, who r epeat ed Cast l e' s st or y, and he f oundt he associ ate cr edi bl e. The manager t hen cont act ed ABM and askedt hat Ker i be r eassi gned, away f r omt he Bel f ast f aci l i t y. I nst ead,ABM t er mi nated Ker i ' s empl oyment . Ker i sued t he Bank f ordef amat i on and f or t or t i ousl y i nt er f er i ng wi t h her empl oyment atABM. Bot h cl ai ms sur vi ved summary j udgment ; Ker i and t he Banksubsequent l y set t l ed.

-9-


10/25

i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . " Mar t i nez- Bur gos, 656 F. 3d at

11.

A. Employment Discrimination Claim

Fl ood advances several t heor i es of empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of her sexual or i ent at i on: ( 1) she was

di schar ged; ( 2) she was subj ect t o a host i l e wor k envi r onment ; ( 3)

she was not pr omoted; ( 4) she recei ved an undue warni ng; and ( 5)

she endur ed mat t ers t hat , i n t he aggr egate, amount t o unl awf ul

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on under t he MHRA. We f ocus on t he

di schar ge and host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai ms, concl udi ng t hat we

must vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s rej ect i on of t hose cl ai ms. We

wi l l expl ai n summar i l y our af f i r mance of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ej ect i on of her ot her di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms.

1. Discharge

Fl ood cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sconst r ued her

di schar ge cl ai m when t he cour t anal yzed her cl ai m under a

const r uct i ve di schar ge r ubr i c. See Fl ood v. Bank of Am. Cor p. , No.

1: 12- CV- 00105- GZS, 2013 WL 4806863, at *9 ( D. Me. Sept . 9, 2013) .

A cl ai mant asser t i ng const r uct i ve di schar ge must meet a heavy

bur den t o show she had "no r easonabl e al t er nat i ve t o r esi gnat i on

because of i nt ol er abl e wor ki ng condi t i ons, " Ki ng v. Bangor Fed.

Cr edi t Uni on, 611 A. 2d 80, 82 ( Me. 1992) . The di st r i ct cour t

det er mi ned t hat Fl ood coul d not car r y t hat bur den on t hese f act s.

-10-


11/25

But Fl ood argues she di d not r esi gn and, consequent l y, she was

never assert i ng const r uct i ve di schar ge.

We agr ee t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sconst r ued Fl ood' s

cl ai m. Her ar gument bel ow was the same as i t i s on appeal : t he

Bank used j ob abandonment as a pr etext f or i mpr oper l y t ermi nat i ng

her empl oyment . 3 Focusi ng on Fl ood' s t ermi nat i on, summary j udgment

was i nappr opr i at e because a r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d det er mi ne

t hat j ob abandonment was a pr et ext , and t he Bank act ual l y f i r ed

Fl ood because of her sexual or i ent at i on.

The MHRA makes i t unl awf ul f or an empl oyer t o di schar ge

an empl oyee on t he basi s of , i nt er al i a, sexual or i ent at i on. 4 Me.

Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) . I n an empl oyee' s cl ai m f or

di spar at e t r eat ment , " l i abi l i t y depends on whet her t he pr ot ect ed

t r ai t . . . act ual l y mot i vat ed t he empl oyer ' s deci si on. " Hazen

3 I n Fl ood' s opposi t i on t o summary j udgment , she wr ote,"Fi nal l y, t he Bank t er mi nat ed Shel l y' s empl oyment . Ther e can be noempl oyment act i on more adverse t han t ermi nat i on. Though t he Bankmay i nsi st t hat t he t er mi nat i on was f or ' j ob abandonment , ' t hatcl ai m mer el y goes t o the empl oyer ' s bur den of pr oduci ng a non-di scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he adver se act i on [ under t he t hr ee- par tMcDonnel l Dougl as f r amewor k] . " DE 63 at 8.

4 By cl osel y t r acki ng f eder al empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on l aw,t he Mai ne l egi sl at ur e " i nt ended t he cour t s t o l ook t o t he f eder alcase l aw t o pr ovi de si gni f i cant gui dance i n t he const r uct i on of

[ t he MHRA] . " Me. Human Ri ght s Comm' n v. Ci t y of Auburn, 408 A. 2d1253, 1261 ( Me. 1979) ( i nt ernal quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Wet her ef or e pr oper l y l ook t o f eder al pr ecedent when anal yzi ng cl ai msar i si ng under cl auses of t he MHRA t hat , l i ke t he di schar ge cl ause,have count erpart s i n f ederal l aw. Compare 42 U. S. C. 2000e-2( a) ( 1) ( pr ohi bi t i ng di scr i mi nat or y di schar ge) , wi t h Me. Rev. St at .Ann. t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) ( same) .

-11-


12/25

Paper Co. v. Bi ggi ns, 507 U. S. 604, 610 ( 1993) . I n t he absence of

di r ect evi dence of di scr i mi nat i on, we eval uat e the cl ai musi ng t he

t hr ee- st ep bur den- shi f t i ng f r amewor k ar t i cul at ed i n McDonnel l

Dougl as Corp. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792, 802- 05 ( 1973) . See Me. Human

Ri ght s Comm' n v. Ci t y of Aubur n, 408 A. 2d 1253, 1261- 62 ( Me. 1979)

( adopt i ng t he McDonnel l Dougl as methodol ogy) . Under t hi s

f r amework, t he empl oyee must pr esent pr i ma f aci e evi dence of

unl awf ul empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on. The bur den of pr oduct i on t hen

shi f t s t o t he empl oyer , who must r ebut wi t h a l egi t i mat e, non-

di scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he adver se empl oyment act i on i dent i f i ed

i n t he empl oyee' s pr i ma f aci e case. Fi nal l y, t he bur den shi f t s

back t o t he empl oyee, who must pr oduce evi dence t hat t he empl oyer ' s

expl anat i on i s pr et extual . See Fuhr mann v. St apl es Of f i ce

Super st or e E. , I nc. , 58 A. 3d 1083, 1089 ( Me. 2012) .

I n t hi s case, we wi l l move di r ect l y t o t he hear t of t he

mat t er . See Gmez- Gonzl ez v. Rur al Oppor t uni t i es, I nc. , 626 F. 3d

654, 662 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( " [ O] n summary j udgment . . . a cour t may

of t en di spense wi t h st r i ct at t ent i on t o t he bur den- shi f t i ng

f r amework, f ocusi ng i nst ead on whether t he evi dence as a whol e i s

suf f i ci ent t o make out a j ur y quest i on as t o pr et ext and

di scr i mi nat or y ani mus. " ( quot i ng Fennel l v. Fi r st St ep Desi gns,

Ltd. , 83 F. 3d 526, 535 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) ) . 5 We det er mi ne whet her

5 Fl ood easi l y est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case f or unl awf ult er mi nat i on. An empl oyee sat i sf i es her i ni t i al pr i ma f aci e bur denby showi ng ( 1) she i s a member of a pr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 2) she

-12-


13/25

Fl ood has made a suf f i ci ent showi ng of pr et ext by aski ng whet her a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude t hat t he Bank: ( 1) knew Fl ood di d

not abandon her j ob, and (2) f i r ed Fl ood because of her sexual

or i ent at i on.

a. The Bank Knew Flood Did Not Abandon Her Job

Ther e i s suf f i ci ent evi dence f or a r easonabl e f act - f i nder

t o concl ude t hat t he Bank knew Fl ood had not abandoned her j ob.

Admi t t edl y, Fl ood was war ned t o cont act Treneer wi t hi n thr ee days

of hi s Sept ember 27 l et t er , or he woul d "assume t hat . . . [ she

had] vol unt ar i l y r esi gned. " Al t hough Fl ood f ai l ed t o cont act hi m,

she di d send a l et t er t o hi s super i or , Cast l e, wi t hi n t hat t hr ee-

day wi ndow, whi ch l aunched an i nvest i gat i on at t he Bank. 6 A

r easonabl e j ur y coul d det er mi ne t hat t he Bank t r eat ed Fl ood' s

l et t er t o Cast l e as sat i sf yi ng Tr eneer ' s i nst r uct i on t o cont act

hi m, t hus r emovi ng t he pr esumpt i on t hat she had r esi gned. Such a

det er mi nat i on woul d be par t i cul ar l y r easonabl e i n l i ght of t he

sat i sf i ed t he empl oyer ' s l egi t i mat e j ob per f or mance expect at i ons;( 3) she was subj ect t o an adver se empl oyment act i on; and ( 4) t heact i on was based i n whol e or i n par t on her membershi p i n apr otect ed cl ass . See Dani el s v. Nar r aguagus Bay Heal t h CareFaci l i t y, 45 A. 3d 722, 726 ( Me. 2012) ( set t i ng f or t h t he el ement sof a pr i ma f aci e case f or empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on based ondi sabi l i t y) . The Bank does not di sput e t hat Fl ood sat i sf i es t hef i r st t wo pr ongs, and t er mi nat i on i s cl ear l y an adver se empl oyment

act i on. Our di scussi on bel ow, concer ni ng Fl ood' s ul t i mat e bur den,coextensi vel y demonst r at es why Fl ood sat i sf i es t he f our t h pr ong ofher pr i ma f aci e case. The Bank' s r ebut t al i s capt ur ed i n i t sasser t i on t hat Fl ood was t ermi nated f or havi ng abandoned her j ob.

6 Cast l e t est i f i ed t hat she r ead t he l et t er and t hen r epor t edi t t o her manager and t he Bank' s Advi ce & Counsel Depar t ment .

-13-


14/25

Bank' s own asser t i on, r ei t er at ed at or al ar gument , t hat Fl ood' s

empl oyment was not severed unt i l November 4.

I n addi t i on, Fl ood wr ot e i n her l et t er t o Cast l e t hat she

had "at t empt ed t o make t he dr i ve i nt o work several t i mes" dur i ng

t he f i nal week of Sept ember 2010, but she coul d not "br i ng

[ her sel f ] t o make t he t r i p compl et el y [ because] t he anxi et y was

t o[ o] gr eat . " She al so expl ai ned i n t he l et t er t hat she saw her

empl oyment wi t h t he Bank as " [ her] career " and more t han " j ust a

j ob. " Taken t oget her , t he evi dence coul d r easonabl y suppor t a

f i ndi ng t hat t he Bank knew Fl ood i nt ended t o ret ur n t o wor k.

b. Discriminatory Animus

The magi st r at e j udge expl i ci t l y f ound t hat t he evi dence

woul d suppor t a f i ndi ng of di scr i mi nat or y ani mus, and expl ai ned

t hat Fl ood' s cl ai ms woul d have sur vi ved summary j udgment i f t here

had been an adver se empl oyment act i on ( such as di scharge) . See

Fl ood, 2013 WL 4806863, at *12- 14. We agr ee wi t h t he magi st r at e

j udge: t he evi dence woul d per mi t a r easonabl e j ury t o concl ude t hat

Cast l e har bor ed ani mosi t y t owar d Fl ood because of Fl ood' s sexual

or i ent at i on and t hat Cast l e under mi ned Fl ood' s wor k per f or mance f or

t hat r eason.

Ther e ar e several bases f or t hi s concl usi on i n t he

summary j udgment r ecor d. Fl ood' s rel at i onshi p wi t h Ker i became a

poi nt of t ensi on and conf l i ct i n Fl ood' s r el at i onshi p wi t h Cast l e.

Af t er Cast l e l ear ned t hat Fl ood was bi sexual , Cast l e began gi vi ng

-14-


15/25

Fl ood col d st ares and maki ng di sparagi ng comment s about Fl ood' s

eat i ng habi t s, dr ess, and hai r st yl e. I n addi t i on, Cast l e advi sed

Fl ood t o keep her gi r l f r i end away f r om her desk dur i ng wor ki ng

hours i f she want ed t o become management and, even though Fl ood and

Ker i compl i ed, Cast l e cont act ed Ker i ' s super vi sor and Ker i r ecei ved

a r epr i mand. A j ur y mi ght but t r ess t he concl usi on t hat Cast l e

harbored ani mus t oward Fl ood based on her sexual or i ent at i on by

cr edi t i ng Fl ood' s asser t i on t hat Cast l e r eact ed negat i vel y when she

saw t he phot o of Fl ood and Ker i on di spl ay at t he Bank' s Apr i l

event .

A r easonabl e j ur y coul d al so f i nd t hat , as t he magi st r at e

j udge wr ot e, Cast l e " t ook af f i r mat i ve measur es t o under mi ne aspect s

of . . . Fl ood' s empl oyment . . . [ and was] set t i ng up [ Fl ood] f or

t er mi nat i on. " I d. at *14. Af t er Fl ood compl ai ned t o Cast l e' s

super vi sor , "Cast l e wr ongl y demanded t hat one of Shel l y' s t eam

l eader s pl ace Shel l y on ver bal war ni ng f or somet hi ng t hat Shel l y

was readi l y abl e t o show was not her r esponsi bi l i t y. " I d. at *12.

I n addi t i on, Cast l e r et r oact i vel y r ecl assi f i ed "aux" hour s t hat

Fl ood' s t eam l eader had appr oved so t hat Fl ood' s pr oduct i vi t y

l evel s woul d f al l bel ow expect at i ons. Cast l e al so mi sr epr esent ed

t he exi st ence of a J une 2010 ver bal war ni ng, enabl i ng her t o i ssue

a Sept ember 2010 ver bal warni ng ( r educed t o wr i t i ng) about

ef f i ci ency t hat t hr eat ened Fl ood wi t h t er mi nat i on i f her

pr oduct i vi t y di d not i mpr ove. As t he magi st r at e j udge wr ot e, t he

-15-


16/25

evi dence "coul d suppor t an i nf er ent i al f i ndi ng t hat t he

[ ef f i ci ency] basi s f or t he negat i ve eval uat i on was f al se or was

bei ng mani pul ated by Cast l e . . . [ because she] harbored ani mus

t owar d Shel l y based on Shel l y' s sexual or i ent at i on. " I d. at *14.

Fi nal l y, we woul d add t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s anal ysi s

t hat Cast l e pl ayed at l east some r ol e i n Fl ood' s act ual di schar ge.

Al t hough Cast l e di d not per sonal l y di schar ge Fl ood, Cast l e

t est i f i ed t hat she r ecommended t o Advi ce & Counsel t hat t hey f ol l ow

t he pr ocedur es f or j ob abandonment , a pr ocedur e Cast l e knew coul d

end i n t er mi nat i on i f Fl ood di d not r et ur n t o wor k. On t he basi s

of t hi s evi dence, a r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d concl ude t hat t he

Bank' s expl anat i on f or f i r i ng Fl ood was pr et extual and t hat she was

act ual l y f i r ed because of her sexual or i ent at i on. Summar y j udgment

was t her ef or e i nappr opr i at e on the di schar ge cl ai m.

2. Hostile Work Environment

Fl ood al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t

hel d t hat t he har assment she al l eged was not suf f i ci ent l y sever e or

pervasi ve t o sust ai n a host i l e work envi r onment cl ai m. The MHRA

makes i t unl awf ul f or an empl oyer t o "di scr i mi nat e wi t h r espect t o

. . . t er ms, condi t i ons or pri vi l eges of empl oyment . " Me. Rev.

St at . Ann. t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) . That pr ovi si on, i n t ur n,

aut hor i zes a cl ai m f or host i l e wor k envi r onment . See 94- 348- 003

Me. Code R. 10( 1) ( C) ( Mai ne Human Ri ght s Commi ss i on r egul at i ons) ;

Wat t v. Uni Fi r st Cor p. , 969 A. 2d 897, 902 ( Me. 2009) .

-16-


17/25

To prevai l on such a cl ai m, t he pl ai nt i f f must show:

( 1) she i s a member of a pr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 2) she was subj ect t o

har assment ; ( 3) t he har assment was based on her member shi p i n a

pr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 4) t he har assment was suf f i ci ent l y sever e or

per vasi ve so as t o al t er t he condi t i ons of her empl oyment and

cr eat e an abusi ve work envi r onment ; ( 5) t he harassment was both

obj ect i vel y and subj ect i vel y of f ensi ve; and ( 6) t her e exi st s some

basi s f or empl oyer l i abi l i t y. Wat t , 969 A. 2d at 903; see For r est

v. Br i nker I nt ' l Payr ol l Co. , 511 F. 3d 225, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

The Bank i nsi st s Fl ood cannot sat i sf y t he t hi r d and f our t h prongs. 7

a. Harassment Was Based on Flood's Sexual Orientation

The Bank i nsi st s t hat t he al l eged act s of harassment wer e

not based on Fl ood' s sexual or i ent at i on, observi ng t hat she was not

exposed t o expl i ci t l y homophobi c st at ement s or der ogat or y r emar ks.

Such an ar gument r equi r es t oo much of t he pl ai nt i f f . For t unat el y,

co- wor ker s and super vi sor s i ncr easi ngl y know bet t er t han t o spew

expl i ci t l y raci st , mi sogyni st , xenophobi c or homophobi c r emar ks i n

t he wor kpl ace. But t he absence of such bl at ant vi t r i ol does not

dooma cl ai mof di scr i mi nat i on. Di scr i mi nat or y conduct unl awf ul l y

based on one' s membershi p i n a pr otected cl ass need not be over t t o

be act i onabl e. O' Rour ke v. Ci t y of Pr ovi dence, 235 F. 3d 713, 729

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; see Rosar i o v. Dep' t of Ar my, 607 F. 3d 241, 247

7 The Bank nei t her concedes nor cont est s t he ot her el ement s.

-17-


18/25

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng O' Rour ke f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat sexual

har assment "need not be over t l y sexual i n nat ur e" ) .

The magi st r at e j udge addressed, see Fl ood, 2013 WL

4806863, at *12- 14, and we have di scussed i n t he pr evi ous sect i on,

how a reasonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude that Cast l e was mot i vat ed by

ani mus t owar d Fl ood based on Fl ood' s sexual or i ent at i on. Whi l e

Cast l e i s t he pr i mar y ant agoni st i n t hi s case, Fl ood al so al l eges

t hat she endur ed harassment at t he hands of another supervi sor ,

Tabbut t , who al l egedl y st ood up t o obser ve Fl ood and Ker i whenever

Ker i ' s work br ought her near Fl ood. Tabbut t al so compel l ed Fl ood

t o endur e a cr ude conver sat i on about Tabbut t ' s br i dal shower , whi ch

i ncl uded r ef erences t o a mal e t eam member as a "buck" and the

f emal es as hi s "does. " Al t hough Fl ood "became ver y uncomf ort abl e

and r epeat edl y asked t o be excused, " Tabbut t t ol d Fl ood t o "deal . "

Accor di ng to Fl ood, "Tabbut t was r ubbi ng my nose i n t he f act t hat

al l ot her Bank empl oyees coul d di scuss t hei r l ove l i ves dur i ng

worki ng hour s and engage i n sexual bant er i n gr aphi c t erms, but I

was not al l owed t o ment i on my r el at i onshi p wi t h another woman or

even t o be seen wi t h her dur i ng worki ng hour s. " And i t was Tabbut t

who, i mmedi at el y af t er Cast l e di scover ed t hat Fl ood was bi sexual ,

"became mor e cr i t i cal of Shel l y' s cal l per f or mance. " I d. at *12.

A r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d concl ude t hat Tabbut t , l i ke Cast l e,

was har assi ng Fl ood because of Fl ood' s sexual or i ent at i on.

-18-


19/25

b. Harassment Was Sufficiently Pervasive

Whet her har assment i s suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o

al t er t he condi t i ons of one' s empl oyment "i s not . . . a

mat hemat i cal l y pr eci se t est " and i t "can be det er mi ned onl y by

l ooki ng at al l t he ci r cumst ances. " Har r i s v. For kl i f t Sys. , I nc. ,

510 U. S. 17, 22- 23 ( 1993) ; see Pomal es v. Cel ul ar es Tel ef ni ca,

I nc. , 447 F. 3d 79, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( st at i ng t hat an eval uat i on

of t he sever i t y and per vasi veness of conduct r equi r es an

"exami n[ at i on of ] al l t he at t endant ci r cumst ances" ) ; Novi el l o v.

Ci t y of Bos. , 398 F. 3d 76, 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( " I n det er mi ni ng

whet her a reasonabl e per son woul d f i nd par t i cul ar conduct host i l e

or abusi ve, a cour t must mul l t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. " ) .

Per vasi veness and sever i t y ar e quest i ons of f act .

"[ S] ubj ect t o some pol i ci ng at t he out er bounds, i t i s f or t he j ur y

t o . . . deci de whet her t he har assment was of a ki nd or t o a degr ee

t hat a r easonabl e per son woul d have f el t t hat i t af f ect ed t he

condi t i ons of her empl oyment . " Rosar i o, 607 F. 3d at 247 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . The j ur y may consi der , among an open

l i st of f act or s: whet her t he conduct was "physi cal l y t hr eat eni ng or

humi l i at i ng, or a mer e of f ensi ve ut t er ance; . . . whet her i t

unr easonabl y i nt er f er e[ d] wi t h an empl oyee' s wor k per f or mance" ; and

whether ( and to what ext ent ) t he conduct af f ected t he empl oyee

psychol ogi cal l y. Har r i s, 510 U. S. at 23.

-19-


20/25

Whi l e "t he conduct may be both [ severe and pervasi ve] ,

onl y one of t he qual i t i es must be pr oved i n or der t o pr evai l . The

sever i t y . . . may var y i nver sel y wi t h i t s per vasi veness. " Nadeau

v. Rai nbow Rugs, I nc. , 675 A. 2d 973, 976 ( Me. 1996) . We have

uphel d host i l e work envi r onment cl ai ms where harassment has been

mor e per vasi ve t han sever e. See, e. g. , Ar r i et a- Col on v. Wal - Mar t

P. R. , I nc. , 434 F. 3d 75, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( uphol di ng j ur y ver di ct

of host i l e work envi r onment where "harassment was const ant and

unbear abl e, l eadi ng t o [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] r esi gnat i on; and t her e was

evi dence t hat [ t he pl ai nt i f f ' s] super vi sor s knew about t he

har assi ng conduct and r at her t han st op i t , par t i ci pat ed i n i t ") ;

Mar r er o v. Goya of P. R. , I nc. , 304 F. 3d 7, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2002)

( uphol di ng j ur y ver di ct of host i l e wor k envi r onment wher e

har assment was " mor e or l ess const ant . . . [ as] di st i ngui shed f r om

. . . comment s t hat ar e f ew and f ar bet ween") ; Whi t e v. N. H. Dep' t

of Cor r . , 221 F. 3d 254, 260 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( uphol di ng j ur y ver di ct

of host i l e wor k envi r onment where "di sgust i ng comment s . . .

occur r ed ever yday [ si c] " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . 8

Nevert hel ess, t he harassment must pass a cer t ai n

t hr eshol d of sever i t y. Of f hand comment s and a t ense or

8 The Bank' s asser t i on t hat Fl ood' s cl ai m must f ai l becauset he al l eged har assment onl y t ook pl ace over a per i od of f our orf i ve mont hs mi st akes t he not i on of per vasi veness wi t h t hat ofdur at i on. We do not r ead t he appl i cabl e pr ecedent t o r equi r ehost i l e condi t i ons t o per si st f or any par t i cul ar br i ght l i ne per i odof t i me bef or e a host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m wi l l l i e.

-20-


21/25

uncomf or t abl e wor ki ng r el at i onshi p wi t h one' s super vi sor are,

wi t hout mor e, i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a host i l e wor k envi r onment

cl ai m. Far agher v. Ci t y of Boca Rat on, 524 U. S. 775, 788 ( 1998) ;

Col n- Font nez v. Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 660 F. 3d 17, 44 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) . I ndeed, " [ t ] he wor kpl ace i s not a cocoon, and t hose

who l abor i n i t ar e expect ed t o have r easonabl y t hi ck ski ns. "

Mar r er o, 304 F. 3d at 19 ( quot i ng Suar ez v. Puebl o I nt ' l , I nc. , 229

F. 3d 49, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) .

Here, Fl ood has made out a genui ne i ssue of mater i al f act

as t o t he exi st ence of har assment t hat i s bot h per vasi ve and above

t he t hr eshol d of mer el y of f ensi ve comment s. The evi dence i ncl udes

at mospher i c and j ob per f or mance- r el at ed i nci dent s, bot h of whi ch

may suppor t t he host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m. See i d. at 28

( "[ A] n act of har assment t hat i s not act i onabl e i n and of i t sel f

may f or m par t of a host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m. " ) . Vi ewed i n

t hei r t ot al i t y, as t hey must be, a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat

t hese i nci dent s al t er ed t he condi t i ons of Fl ood' s empl oyment . See

Har r i s, 510 U. S. at 23 ( " [ W] het her an envi r onment i s ' host i l e' or

' abusi ve' can be det er mi ned onl y by l ooki ng at al l t he

ci r cumst ances. ") ; Novi el l o, 398 F. 3d at 92 ( descr i bi ng t he host i l e

wor k envi r onment anal ysi s as an eval uat i on of " t he tot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances" ) .

I n di scussi ng t he di scr i mi nat or y ani mus l i nked t o Fl ood' s

di scharge cl ai m, we have al r eady noted many of t he at mospher i c

-21-


22/25

i nci dent s r el evant t o her host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m: Cast l e' s

demeanor shi f t i ng when she l ear ned Fl ood was bi sexual ; Tabbut t

st andi ng t o watch whenever Ker i appr oached Fl ood; Cast l e

i nst r uct i ng Fl ood t o keep Ker i away f r omher desk f or "per cept i on"

pur poses; Fl ood bei ng i nst r uct ed not t o di scuss her per sonal l i f e

at wor k, even t hough ot her empl oyees, i ncl udi ng her super vi sor ,

wer e per mi t t ed t o do so - - behavi or s conveyi ng t hat Fl ood' s

r el at i onshi p wi t h Ker i was under t he const ant and di sappr ovi ng

scrut i ny of her super vi sor s. I n addi t i on, Cast l e di d not al l ow

Fl ood t o t ake t i me away f r om t he phone t o at t end LGBT af f i ni t y

gr oup meet i ngs, even t hough ot her empl oyees were al l owed t o at t end

si mi l ar t ypes of meet i ngs. A r easonabl e j ur y coul d al so consi der

t he crude conver sat i on to whi ch Tabbut t subj ect ed Fl ood and

determi ne t hat i t r ose above "a mere of f ensi ve ut t erance" and was,

i n f act , "humi l i at i ng" t o her . Har r i s, 510 U. S. at 23.

We have al so not ed i n di scussi ng Fl ood' s di schar ge cl ai m

i nci dent s i nvol vi ng t he eval uat i on of her wor k whi ch ar e r el evant

t o her host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m. She al l eges t hat her wor k

per f or mance was undul y cr i t i ci zed, t hat Cast l e ur ged Tr eneer t o

r epr i mand her f or a mi st ake she di d not make, and t hat Cast l e

r et r oact i vel y mani pul at ed t he cl assi f i cat i on of her hour s so that

her per f ormance f el l bel ow expectat i ons and she r ecei ved a ver bal

war ni ng r educed t o wr i t i ng. Agai n, under a t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances anal ysi s, a j ur y coul d consi der t hose i nci dent s as

-22-


23/25

pr omi nent poi nt s i n an under l yi ng pat t er n of host i l i t y. See

Her nandez- Lor i ng v. Uni ver si dad Met r opol i t ana, 233 F. 3d 49, 55- 56

( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s case sur vi ved summar y

j udgment wher e t wo speci f i c i nst ances of of f ensi ve conduct wer e

onl y t he most not or i ous i n a pat t er n of such conduct ) .

Hence, on t hese f act s, we ar e unwi l l i ng t o say t hat

Fl ood' s host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m f ai l s as a mat t er of l aw.

To t he cont r ar y, a r easonabl e j ury coul d f i nd Fl ood had endur ed

suf f i ci ent l y per vasi ve har assment t o al t er t he condi t i ons of her

empl oyment . 9

B. Defamation Claims

Fl ood' s def amat i on cl ai ms ar e a si mpl er mat t er . They

ent ered t he case by way of a mot i on f or l eave to amend her

compl ai nt . I n par t i al l y gr ant i ng and par t i al l y denyi ng t hat l eave,

9 We br i ef l y addr ess Fl ood' s t hr ee remai ni ng di scr i mi nat i oncl ai ms. Fi r st , Fl ood' s f ai l ur e t o pr omot e cl ai m f ai l s because sheonl y est abl i shed t he f i r st of f our el ement s i n a pr i ma f aci e casef or f ai l ur e t o pr omot e, namel y, member shi p i n a pr ot ect ed cl ass.See Lakshman v. Uni v. of Me. Sys. , 328 F. Supp. 2d 92, 117 ( D. Me.2004) ( expl ai ni ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e casef or f ai l ur e t o pr omot e by showi ng: ( 1) she i s a member of apr ot ect ed cl ass; ( 2) she was qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on; ( 3) shewas not hi r ed despi t e her qual i f i cat i ons; and ( 4) t he j ob was gi vent o someone out si de t he pr ot ect ed cl ass) . Second, havi ng al r eadyconsi dered t he Sept ember 2010 warni ng i n t he cont ext of Fl ood' s

host i l e wor k envi r onment cl ai m, we decl i ne t o consi der i t as ani ndependent basi s f or a cl ai m of di scri mi nat i on. Fi nal l y, Fl oodcont ends t hat t he Bank' s act i ons ar e adver se i n t he aggr egat e andconsequent l y act i onabl e under t he "any ot her mat t er " cl ause of t heMHRA. See Me. Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) . Her e,however , our t r eat ment of t he host i l e work envi r onment cl ai mmakesi t unnecessar y f or us t o addr ess t hi s st at e l aw i ssue.

-23-


24/25

t he magi st r at e j udge wr ot e, " [ T] he onl y st at ement [ Fl ood] has

ar gued wi t h t he r equi r ed speci f i ci t y i s t he st at ement r el at i ng t o

her cl ai mof sel f - publ i cat i on r egar di ng j ob abandonment . . . . Her

cl ai m i s l i mi t ed . . . t o j ust t hat por t i on of her def amat i on

cl ai m. " 10 Fl ood di d not obj ect t o t hat or der . Al t hough she ar gued

bel ow t hat t he Bank def amed her wi t hi n i t s own organi zat i on and t o

t he Mai ne Human Ri ght s Commi ss i on, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d that

Fl ood f ai l ed t o pr eserve t hose cl ai ms because she f ai l ed t o obj ect

t o t he magi st r at e j udge' s or der . We agr ee: t he magi st r at e j udge' s

or der cl ear l y l i mi t ed Fl ood' s def amat i on cl ai ms t o a sel f -

publ i cat i on t heor y, and Fl ood' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t hat or der

bel ow i s f at al t o her t hi r d- par t y publ i cat i on t heor y on appeal .

See Gar ayal de- Ri j os v. Muni ci pal i t y of Car ol i na, 747 F. 3d 15, 22

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "[ F] ai l ur e t o asser t a speci f i c obj ecti on t o [ t he

R & R] [ has] i r r et r i evabl y wai ve[ d] any ri ght t o r evi ew by the

di st r i ct cour t and t h[ i s] cour t of appeal s. " ( quot i ng Cor t s- Ri ver a

v. Dep' t of Cor r . & Rehab. of P. R. , 626 F. 3d 21, 27 ( 1st Ci r .

10 Fl ood' s t wo theor i es of def amat i on each concer ned t heal l egedl y def amat or y i nf or mat i on t hat she abandoned her j ob. Onone t heor y, t he Bank publ i shed t hat i nf or mat i on ( t hi r d- par t y

publ i cat i on) ; on t he ot her , Fl ood was compel l ed t o publ i sh i ther sel f ( sel f - publ i cat i on) . Compar e Col e v. Chandl er , 752 A. 2d1189, 1193 ( Me. 2000) ( set t i ng f or t h t he el ement s of def amat i on,i ncl udi ng "a f al se and def amator y st at ement concerni ng anot her " ) ,wi t h Car ey v. Mt . Deser t I sl and Hosp. , 910 F. Supp. 7, 13 ( D. Me.1995) ( hol di ng t hat Mai ne woul d r ecogni ze a cl ai m f or compel l edsel f - publ i cat i on) .

-24-


25/25

2010) ) ) . The def amat i on cl ai m r oot ed i n t hi r d- par t y publ i cat i on

was not pr eser ved f or our r evi ew.

As t o def amat i on under a compel l ed sel f - publ i cat i on

t heor y, Fl ood has wai ved t hat cl ai m her e by pr ovi di ng no f act ual

suppor t f or i t and by f ai l i ng t o i dent i f y any speci f i c er r or of l aw

made bel ow. The di st r i ct cour t di sposed of t hi s i ssue qui ckl y:

" [ T] her e i s no need t o del ve i nt o t hat t heor y of t he case. Shel l y

Fl ood has not pr esent ed any act ual evi dence of sel f - publ i cat i on. "

Fl ood, 2013 WL 4806863, at *16. The same i s t r ue on appeal . The

cl ai mf or def amat i on by compel l ed sel f - publ i cat i on i s wai ved. See

Car r er as v. Saj o, Gar c a & Par t ner s, 596 F. 3d 25, 32 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct or y manner , unaccompani ed

by some ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. "

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d 78, 94 n. 4 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) ) ) .

III.

For t he r easons st ated, we vacate t he gr ant of summary

j udgment on t he di schar ge and host i l e wor k envi r onment por t i ons of

Fl ood' s MHRA empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on cl ai mand r emand f or f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. We af f i r m t he gr ant of

summary j udgment on t he bal ance of Fl ood' s di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, as

wel l as on her def amat i on cl ai ms. Each par t y shal l bear i t s own

costs.

So order ed.

-25-

Flood v. Bank of America Corporation, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of Flood v. Bank of America Corporation, 1st Cir. (2015)