Robinson v. Town of Marshfield
950 F.3d 21
1st Cir.2020Background
- Kevin C. Robinson served as Fire Chief for Marshfield, MA from 1978 and retired in March 2015 at age 60 following a town-commissioned law‑firm report concluding the evidence could support violations of Massachusetts conflict‑of‑interest laws relating to family members employed by the Department.
- After the report, Robinson filed administrative charges with the MCAD and EEOC alleging age discrimination and retaliation and obtained a Right‑to‑Sue letter; he filed suit in federal court in December 2016 asserting federal ADEA claims and multiple state claims (Chapter 151B and common‑law claims).
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the Town on all claims; Robinson appealed only the rulings insofar as they named the Town as defendant.
- On appeal the First Circuit reviewed de novo under the McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework, assuming Robinson could make prima facie showings but focusing on whether he produced evidence of pretext for the Town’s asserted nondiscriminatory reasons (performance concerns and alleged conflict‑of‑interest violations).
- The court affirmed summary judgment on Robinson’s federal ADEA claims (discrimination and 2015 retaliation) and related state Chapter 151B claims and failure‑to‑investigate (the latter waived). It vacated and directed dismissal without prejudice of certain state common‑law claims and a 2014 gender‑retaliation Chapter 151B claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA claim: age discrimination (constructive discharge) | Robinson says Town created hostile work environment and constructively discharged him because of age | Town relied on legitimate reasons: performance/morale concerns and law‑firm report on conflict‑of‑interest violations | Affirmed for Town—Robinson failed to produce evidence that the Town’s proffered reasons were pretextual |
| ADEA claim: retaliation (2015 complaint) | Robinson alleges protected complaint to Selectmen in Jan 2015 led to adverse actions (vote to terminate, paid leave, show‑cause) | Town points to preexisting investigation and contemporaneous law‑firm report as nonretaliatory reasons for actions | Affirmed for Town—temporal proximity undermined by intervening law‑firm investigation/report; no showing of pretext |
| ADEA failure‑to‑investigate | Robinson contends Town had duty to investigate/remedy discrimination | Town says no affirmative ADEA duty absent a proven discrimination claim or Secretary of Labor action | Waived on appeal (plaintiff disclaimed it) |
| State Chapter 151B claims (age discrimination & 2015 retaliation) | Parallel to federal ADEA claims | Same nondiscriminatory explanations; state law analyzed similarly | Affirmed for Town—state claims fall with federal ADEA rulings |
| State common‑law claims & 2014 gender‑retaliation (breach, tortious interference, defamation, 2014 Chapter 151B) | Robinson alleges separate 2014 report of niece’s gender discrimination and related harms | Defendants sought summary judgment; factual and legal disputes exist distinct from ADEA claims | District Court summary judgment vacated as to these claims and dismissal without prejudice directed (comity and avoidance of needless state‑law decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (pretext requires showing employer didn’t believe its stated reason)
- Soto‑Feliciano v. Villa Cofresí Hotels, Inc., 779 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2015) (McDonnell Douglas applied in ADEA/retaliation context)
- Vélez v. Thermo King de Puerto Rico, Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (pretext and prima facie elements in ADEA cases)
- Calero‑Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (temporal proximity may support causation in retaliation claims)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (employers need not suspend earlier contemplated actions upon learning of complaints)
- Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp., 46 N.E.3d 24 (Mass. 2016) (Mass. law on employment discrimination analyzed alongside federal ADEA principles)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (federal courts should avoid needless decisions on state law; comity favors dismissal of pendant state claims)