McGarry v. Pielech
47 A.3d 271
| R.I. | 2012Background
- McGarry, age 56, claimed age discrimination and retaliation in hiring in Cumberland School Department over 1998–1999 vacancies.
- He applied for two Cumberland Middle School English positions (full-time and part-time) in 1998 and for an English/Social Studies position in 1999; he was not hired.
- Interview notes sheets from 1998 were missing; McGarry alleged spoliation and adverse inference against the school department.
- The trial judge allowed a spoliation instruction suggesting the jury could infer unfavorable evidence from missing interview sheets; the jury found in McGarry’s favor on both discrimination and retaliation.
- Posttrial Rule 50 motions were denied; the trial judge later granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendant and, in the alternative, a new trial; the Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden-shifting; spoliation impact on prima facie case | McGarry proves discrimination with missing sheets via inference | No extrinsic support; inference insufficient | Rule 50 error; spoliation inference supported by other evidence; judgment reversed |
| Sufficiency of proof of pretext and discriminatory motive | Disbelieving nondiscriminatory reasons plus misrepresentation show pretext | Reasons were credible; no pretext shown | Discrepancies and spoliation evidence supported finding of discrimination; reversal of judgment for new trial |
| Whether spoliation instruction alone can sustain a verdict | Adverse inference plus prima facie evidence enough | Adverse inference must be supported by extrinsic evidence | Court held adverse inference plus evidence may suffice; remand for new trial |
| Appropriate standard of review on new trial motion | Trial court’s weight of evidence error | New-trial standard properly weighed credibility and evidence | New trial affirmed; overall decision remanded for fresh consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Behavioral Health, Rhode Island, Inc. v. Barros, 710 A.2d 680 (R.I.1998) (prima facie framework; pretext burden remains with plaintiff)
- Mead v. Papa Razzi Restaurant, 899 A.2d 437 (R.I.2006) (spoliation as inference; standards for missing evidence)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.1998) (adverse inference requires some relevance evidence; case cited for comparative rule)
- Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (R.I.2000) (odds of disproportional inference; weighing spoliation impact)
- Casey v. Town of Portsmouth, 861 A.2d 1032 (R.I.2004) (interview realities; first-impression judgments in hiring)