897 F.3d 360
1st Cir.2018Background
- Micheo was hired by Stericycle as a field sales representative in April 2012 and assigned to the BioSystem Program in March 2013, which disposed of biomedical sharps for hospitals.
- Micheo claims she was denied promotion to an IWSS Program Manager role (held informally by Jorge Rodríguez) and was later suspended, placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and terminated in Jan. 2014.
- Micheo filed suit alleging Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation (among other federal and Puerto Rico claims), later abandoning several claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on Micheo’s Title VII claims, dismissed abandoned claims with prejudice, and dismissed pendent Puerto Rico claims without prejudice; Micheo appealed.
- On appeal, Micheo argued (1) she was denied a promotion to a non-payrolled IWSS Program Manager position and (2) defendants retaliated after she complained of discrimination; she also challenged denial of her motion to strike the summary-judgment papers under Local Rule 56.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of promotion to IWSS Program Manager was an adverse employment action | Micheo: position existed (Rodríguez held title/supervised her and received higher pay), so passing her over was adverse | Stericycle: no formal payroll position; Rodríguez’s title/activities don’t show a distinct supervisory position or higher pay tied to IWSS role | Court: No genuine dispute — position not established; emails and pay history insufficient to show formal promotion/adverse action |
| Whether suspension, PIP, termination were retaliatory | Micheo: adverse actions followed protected complaints (EEOC/ADU) and timing supports pretext | Stericycle: actions were motivated by Micheo’s misconduct and policy-based discipline, not retaliation | Court: Plaintiff met prima facie timing but failed to show pretext; disciplinary reasons legitimate and supported; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether deviations from disciplinary policy show pretext | Micheo: Stericycle skipped steps, failed to provide resources, gave shifting explanations, and terminated during PIP contrary to policy | Stericycle: policies allow skipping steps; PIP authorizes termination for noncompliance; explanations consistent with misconduct basis | Court: No evidence of improper deviation; policy language and record undercut pretext claim |
| Whether District Court abused discretion denying motion to strike under Local Rule 56 | Micheo: defendants’ exhibit numbering misaligned with docket, violating Local Rule 56 | Stericycle: citations referenced exhibit labels correctly; any numbering discrepancy not prejudicial | Court: No abuse of discretion — citations reasonably referred to labeled exhibits; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Lockridge v. The Univ. Of Maine Sys., 597 F.3d 464 (summary-judgment standards in discrimination cases)
- Torrech-Hernández v. Gen. Elec. Co., 519 F.3d 41 (courts need not accept unsupported, conclusory statements as fact)
- Colón v. Tracey, 717 F.3d 43 (de novo review of summary judgment grants)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (definition of tangible employment action)
- Planadeball v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 793 F.3d 169 (timing alone insufficient to prove pretext)
- Brennan v. GTE Gov't Sys. Corp., 150 F.3d 21 (deviation from disciplinary norms can show pretext)
- Gómez–González v. Rural Opportunities, Inc., 626 F.3d 654 (pretext shown by inconsistencies in employer’s explanations)
- Turner v. Hubbard Sys., Inc., 855 F.3d 10 (abuse-of-discretion review for denying motions to strike under local rules)