Bark v. Advancepierre Foods Inc., CUMcv-15-20

Plaintiff Timothy Bark, an AdvancePierre employee, alleges he was denied a promotion in June 2013 in retaliation for assisting his wife in a prior hostile-work-environment suit against AdvancePierre (he was deposed and provided helpful testimony in Jan. 2013; wife’s case settled Feb. 2013).
Bark applied for a vacant supervisor position; his immediate supervisor recommended him, but a higher-level decision declined to offer the position.
AdvancePierre contends the decision was for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (e.g., disciplinary write-up); Bark contends it was motivated by his prior assistance in his wife’s case.
There is conflicting evidence about an alleged statement by Bark’s supervisor that corporate had said Bark would “never be a supervisor” and that Bark would “know why” — dispute whether the statement was made and whether it referenced Bark’s participation in the lawsuit.
There is also a factual dispute whether a prior disciplinary write-up was disqualifying: company policy allegedly bars promotions for 90 days after write-ups, but Bark’s application fell outside that 90-day window.
The court considered summary judgment standards and concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to Bark, genuine disputes of material fact exist, so summary judgment is denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of promotion was retaliatory under the Maine Human Rights Act	Bark: denial was retaliation for assisting wife’s suit; corporate told supervisor Bark would “never be a supervisor” because of that participation	AdvancePierre: decision motivated by legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (discipline, other business reasons)	Genuine factual dispute exists; issue for trial — summary judgment denied
Admissibility/significance of supervisor's alleged statement	Bark: statement shows retaliatory motive linking denial to prior assistance	AdvancePierre: disputes the statement was made or referenced the lawsuit	Statement’s existence and meaning are disputed; jury must decide
Effect of disciplinary write-up on promotion eligibility	Bark: write-up would not disqualify because application was outside 90-day prohibition	AdvancePierre: write-up was a valid disqualifying reason	Dispute over timing and effect of write-up creates a triable issue
Whether summary judgment is appropriate given record and legal standard	Bark: evidence creates genuine issues of material fact on causation	AdvancePierre: no sufficient evidence of causation	Court: applying summary judgment standards, Bark met burden to show triable issues; denial of summary judgment warranted

Johnson v. McNeil, 800 A.2d 702 (2002 ME) (principles governing consideration of the record and Rule 56(h) statements on summary judgment)
Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 694 A.2d 924 (1997 ME) (summary judgment may be granted where opposing facts would not withstand judgment as a matter of law)