Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp., 835 F.3d 180

Pippin (executive housekeeper) and Parker (assistant executive housekeeper) worked at Boulevard-owned Comfort Inn in South Portland; they and another female employee reported sexual harassment by a maintenance worker to the general manager in April 2010.
HR investigated; the maintenance worker received a written reprimand on May 11, 2010; no further discipline followed.
In June 2010, Pippin and Parker each sent unsolicited written statements to HR recounting co-workers’ concerns that management had protected the harasser and pressured witnesses.
Both plaintiffs were terminated in 2011 and sued in state court in 2014 alleging retaliation under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (MWPA) and the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA); Boulevard removed the cases to federal court.
The district court granted summary judgment for Boulevard, applying a pre-Harrison “job duties exception” to find the plaintiffs’ reports were not protected; the First Circuit reversed, remanding for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs’ reporting constituted protected activity under the MWPA	Their initial report plus later unsolicited letters show a course of conduct opposing employer’s unlawful harassment, not merely job duties	Plaintiffs only passed along the victim’s complaint and gave information as part of job duties; no evidence of oppositional motive	Reversed: jury could reasonably find their conduct was oppositional and thus protected under MWPA (Harrison controls)
Whether plaintiffs engaged in protected activity under MHRA §4633 (opposition clause)	Their reports and post-investigation letters opposed employer’s handling of unlawful harassment and therefore qualify as opposition	The reporting only related to cooperating with an investigation and not opposition to unlawful practice; job duties preclude protection	Reversed: same analysis as MWPA; a reasonable jury could find oppositional motivation and thus protection under MHRA
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record	Plaintiffs contend disputed facts about motive require trial	Boulevard contends no genuine dispute on motive; district court’s job-duties ruling was dispositive	Summary judgment improper: factual dispute over motive precludes disposing of protected-activity element as a matter of law

Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., 811 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2016) (job-duties do not categorically defeat MWPA protection; motive matters)
Walsh v. TelTech Sys., Inc., 821 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and construing facts for nonmovant)
Collazo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Mfg., Inc., 617 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2010) (oppositional conduct can be shown by purposive conduct; Title VII context)
DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic, 796 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2015) (broad view of oppositional conduct under anti-retaliation law)
Miranda-Rivera v. Toledo-Dávila, 813 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2016) (summary judgment: genuine dispute exists when a jury can reasonably interpret evidence for nonmovant)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (U.S. 2011) (jurors may rely on common sense and experience inferences)
Rubinovitz v. Rogato, 60 F.3d 906 (1st Cir. 1995) (appellate courts must draw all reasonable inferences for opposing party on summary judgment)