Powercomm, LLC v. Holyoke Gas & Electric Department
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21242
1st Cir.2011Background
- PowerComm contracts with HG & E to perform electrical work from 2003 through 2007, owned by Olga Bruce and son David Kwasnik, employing Puerto Rican workers.
- A 2006 HG & E contract was in effect when a PowerComm employee was severely injured, prompting a stand-down order by Lavelle and investigations by OSHA and HG & E.
- HG & E invited bids for the 2007 contract; Willco was the lowest bidder and PowerComm the second lowest; Delgado recommended Willco for the primary contract and PowerComm for the secondary contract.
- Willco could not post a bond in time; the contract was rebid after HG & E considered alternatives, including a letter of credit, with no final substitution.
- PowerComm resisted bidding in the re-bid and later filed an eight-count federal complaint alleging racial discrimination and related claims, which the district court dismissed on summary judgment.
- The First Circuit reviews de novo whether the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact for trial under federal civil-rights and related state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the evidence raise a jury issue on racial discrimination in termination or bid selection? | PowerComm alleges termination/bid decisions were racially biased. | HG & E acted lawfully and relied on competitive bidding and investigations, with no demonstrable animus. | No genuine issue; no evidence shows termination or bid decisions were tainted by racial animus. |
| Whether mixed-m motive analysis applies given purported direct evidence of bias. | Direct evidence requires mixed-motive analysis under Price Waterhouse. | No smoking-gun direct evidence; mixed-motive framework not triggered. | Direct evidence not established; mixed-motive analysis not applicable here. |
| Whether PowerComm can sustain a hostile work environment claim against HG & E. | Disparaging remarks about Puerto Ricans created a racially hostile environment affecting PowerComm. | Harassment must be severe or pervasive; evidence ties to a non-party employee and is insufficient for PowerComm’s independent claim. | Assuming some evidence could show a hostile environment to David Kwasnik, PowerComm cannot recover for he is not a party to the direct suit; the claim fails as to PowerComm. |
| Whether the other asserted claims (conspiracy under §1985 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A) were properly preserved and fail on the merits. | Claims were pursued on appeal; discovery issues argued but not adequately developed. | Claims are conclusory and forfeited for lack of development on appeal; discovery issues are not properly preserved. | Stayed or forfeited on appeal; affirmance on summary judgment without need to resolve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danco, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 178 F.3d 8 ((1st Cir. 1999)) (hostile work environment could be grounded in contract-based claims)
- Conward v. Cambridge Sch. Comm., 171 F.3d 12 ((1st Cir. 1999)) (employment discrimination under Title VII and §1981; overlapping elements)
- Smith v. F.W. Morse & Co., 76 F.3d 413 ((1st Cir. 1996)) (direct evidence concept in discrimination cases)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (middle-ground standard for actionable harassment)
- Swanset Dev. Corp. v. City of Taunton, 423 Mass. 390 (Mass. 1996) (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I; hostility-act standards)