792 F.Supp.3d 303
D.R.I.2025Background
- Plaintiff Alison McDaniel filed suit alleging unlawful retaliation under Rhode Island’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) against Preserve Property Management Company (PPMC) and Preserve at Boulder Hills (PBH).
- McDaniel was an independent contractor, not an employee of the defendants.
- The court had previously resolved other issues in the case and was now focused solely on whether FEPA’s anti-retaliation provision covers independent contractors and the liability of the named defendants under that provision.
- Supplemental briefing was ordered to address whether FEPA’s anti-retaliation section protects independent contractors and whether PBH qualifies as a covered employer under the statute.
- The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (RICHR) participated as amicus curiae regarding the statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FEPA’s anti-retaliation provision protect independent contractors? | FEPA’s use of "any individual" includes independent contractors. | "Any individual" should be limited to employees, not independent contractors. | Yes, FEPA protects independent contractors. |
| Is PBH a covered employer under FEPA? | PBH and PPMC should be treated as an integrated employer, thus PBH is covered. | PBH has no employees and does not meet FEPA’s definition of employer. | PBH is not a covered employer; summary judgment for PBH. |
| Can McDaniel pursue a retaliation claim against PPMC as an independent contractor? | Process and protections for any individual should be available, regardless of status as employee or contractor. | Retaliation claim fails because McDaniel was not an employee; she did not engage in protected activity under FEPA. | McDaniel can pursue her retaliation claim as an independent contractor against PPMC. |
| Did McDaniel suffer a materially adverse action? | Filing a criminal report after her protected activity constitutes adverse action. | No materially adverse action occurred, especially since McDaniel was not an employee. | Factual disputes remain; claim can proceed against PPMC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olamuyiwa v. Zebra Atlantek, Inc., 45 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2012) (rules for interpreting clear statutory language)
- State v. Clark, 974 A.2d 558 (R.I. 2009) (each word in a statute has significance)
- Martone v. Johnston Sch. Comm., 824 A.2d 426 (R.I. 2003) (plain statutory language as the best evidence of legislative intent)
- Stratton v. Bentley Univ., 113 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2024) (elements of retaliation claims)
- Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (protected activity need not result in a violation to be actionable retaliation)