Pina v. Children's Place
740 F.3d 785
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Pina, an African-American per diem employee, sought an ASM role at Cambridgeside in 2007 and was hired by Raymond to report to Trench.
- Pina accused coworkers of altering Williams's time cards; later accused Trench of an affair with Williams.
- Raymond investigated and found no evidence of wrongdoing, but Pina reported further harassment and was suspended with pay.
- Pina accused Trench of an affair with Williams on July 23, 2007; Raymond fired her on July 27, 2007 for harassing, disorderly, and inappropriate conduct.
- Pina filed MCAD charges in 2008 and 2011; MCAD dismissed the second charge; suit followed in 2011 asserting §1981 and MA chapter 151B claims.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of TCP and Raymond; Pina appeals raising discovery and merits challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on discovery rulings | Pina argues Raymond deposition reopening and Henry affidavit testing were necessary | Appellees argue no abuse; changes were non-substantive and disclosure issues cured | No abuse; discovery denials were within discretion |
| Whether Pina stated a prima facie §1981 discrimination claim | Pina claims she was terminated for race after reporting misconduct | Employer provided non-discriminatory reason for termination; no pretext shown | Summary judgment affirmed; no pretext or discrimination shown |
| Whether Pina established a prima facie retaliation claim | Pina alleges retaliation for MCAD activity and failing to rehire | No qualified/available position; Henry had knowledge of MCAD claims | Summary judgment affirmed for retaliation; no knowledge or vacancy shown |
| Whether the same-actor inference or other pretext arguments undermine the decision | Raymond hired and fired Pina within a month; alleged discriminatory motive | Same-actor inference supports no inference of discrimination; otherwise record fails to show pretext | Rejected; discrimination claim fails on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; substantial evidence required)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (weighing evidence at summary judgment; no credibility determinations)
- LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836 (1st Cir. 1993) (same-actor inference considerations)
- Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
- CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008) (§1981 retaliation scope; protected activity context)
- Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2013) (discrimination standard; review of favorable posture to plaintiff)
- Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 1996) (summary judgment in discrimination context; credibility cautions)
- Mowbray v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D. Mass. 1999) (Rule 56(d) standards; need for concrete basis for further discovery)
- Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2007) (summarizes need for concrete evidence, not rhetoric)