785 F.3d 65
1st Cir.2015Background
- Peter Santangelo was a New York Life agent for ~40+ years and was audited repeatedly beginning 2006 for maintaining customer-signed but incomplete forms, receiving escalating reprimands and enhanced supervision.
- After a December 2008 audit and a recommendation to terminate, New York Life sent a termination letter effective May 1, 2009, but cut off Santangelo’s access and locked him out in April 2009.
- Santangelo filed an MCAD charge (Dec. 2009) alleging age discrimination; MCAD and later the EEOC found no probable cause (MCAD decision Feb. 2012; EEOC adopted MCAD Oct. 31, 2013).
- Santangelo sued in state court (common-law claims) in 2012; later filed a federal ADEA/Chapter 151B suit; the district court consolidated the actions and granted summary judgment to New York Life.
- Santangelo challenges (1) that he was an employee protected by ADEA/Chapter 151B and that his termination was age-based, and (2) that New York Life improperly denied him Supplemental Senior Nylic Income (SSNI) tied to an "active Retired Agent" status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santangelo was an "employee" (ADEA/Ch.151B coverage) | Santangelo contends he was an employee of NYL for purposes of discrimination statutes | NYL contends he was an independent contractor, and the statutes protect only employees | Court assumed arguendo employee status but found other defects; District Court correctly concluded undisputed facts support independent-contractor status |
| Timeliness of Chapter 151B claim | Santangelo says limitations did not run until MCAD denial in Feb 2012 | NYL says state claim required suit within 3 years of the unlawful act (2009 termination) | Chapter 151B claim is time-barred because Santangelo filed MCAD charge in 2009 and offers no reason the statute of limitations was tolled until 2012 |
| ADEA discrimination (pretext/merits) | Santangelo argues NYL’s stated reason (violations) was pretext; points to differential treatment and hiring of younger agents | NYL points to undisputed documentation of repeated rule violations and escalating discipline as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | No evidence of age-based motive or contemporaneous references to age; plaintiff’s assertions are speculative—summary judgment for NYL affirmed |
| SSNI / common-law claims (breach, implied covenant, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit) | Santangelo argues termination deprived him of eligibility for SSNI and that NYL terminated to avoid SSNI payments | NYL points to SSNI program terms requiring election of an "active Retired Agent" contract (unavailable if terminated) and lack of evidence NYL acted to deny SSNI | No breach of contract or implied duty shown; no evidentiary support NYL terminated to avoid SSNI; promissory estoppel fails (no promise to pay if terminated); unjust enrichment/quantum meruit fail given existing contract terms |
Key Cases Cited
- Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64 (1st Cir.) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresí Hotels, Inc., 779 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir.) (elements of prima facie disparate-termination ADEA case)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir.) (pretext requires specific facts showing sham motive)
- Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir.) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Silvestris v. Tantasqua Reg'l Sch. Dist., 847 N.E.2d 328 (Mass.) (when statute of limitations begins to run under Chapter 151B)