Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197

Rolfs sued Home Depot under Title VII and RSA 354-A for sex discrimination and retaliation; the court granted summary judgment for Home Depot.
Rolfs was Manchester, NH store manager under District Manager Gene Kelly; relevant conduct spanned 2008–2010, including in-store boorishness and a party rant.
Key incidents: Kelly’s comments about a female customer, including explicit sexual remarks and “fucking homo” language at a party.
Rolfs reported four P/DNs (Nov 8, 2009; Dec 4, 2009; Jan 25, 2010; Mar 16, 2010) and a 60‑day PIP thereafter; there were store walks and management actions surrounding these actions.
Rolfs resigned May 2010 after Home Depot suspended his PIP; he had filed an HRC charge in April 2010; Home Depot investigated and deemed the PIP suspended.
The court analyzed Counts I (discrimination) and II (retaliation) under Title VII and RSA 354-A, granting judgment for Home Depot on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rolfs' claim is baseable on sex discrimination (hostile work environment)	Rolfs asserts gender stereotyping or sex-plus discrimination.	No protected class basis proven; conduct not shown to be based on sex.	Count I fails; no sex-based discrimination proven.
Whether Rolfs proved a protected-class basis and actionable hostile environment	Rolfs contends conduct targeted his masculinity and faithfulness as a husband.	No protected class identified; faithful-spouse is not protected; no sex-plus proof.	No viable protected-class basis; sex-plus theory rejected.
Whether P/DNs and PIP constitute adverse actions in a retaliation claim	Disciplinary actions and PIP were retaliatory for protected activity.	P/DNs/PIP not independently adverse actions; causation lacking; actions predate protected activity where applicable.	P/DNs and PIP not sufficient for adverse action; retaliation claim rejected.
Whether protected activity occurred (Come on, Gene) and supports retaliation	“Come on, Gene” was protected activity opposing harassment.	Words alone insufficient; later events show no causal link.	Protected activity exists, but causation fails under timing and pretext analysis.
Whether Rolfs suffered constructive discharge	Harassment and failure to remedy forced resignation.	Harassment ceased before resignation; timing too distant; no constructive discharge.	No constructive discharge; dismissal of this theory.

Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of P.R., 676 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 2012) (gender-stereotyping discussions and sex-based claims; determining protected class)
Higgins v. New Balance Ath. Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) (requires protected class basis for sex discrimination; gender orientation issues analyzed)
O’Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 2001) (hostile environment framework; requires protected class link)
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) (gender-plus discrimination concept (predicate for gender-based claims))
Coleman v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc., 108 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 1997) (limits on sex-plus claims; requires corresponding male subclass)
Pearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2013) (causation framework in retaliation; temporal proximity limits)
Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (temporal proximity standards for retaliation)
Espinal v. Nat’l Grid NE Holdings 2, LLC, 693 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2012) (pretext inquiry; deference to employer’s business rationale)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (adverse action standard in retaliation)
Gómez-González v. Rural Opps., Inc., 626 F.3d 654 (1st Cir. 2010) (pretext and evaluation of business judgments)