Bailey v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, et al

Filing

OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge. Per Curiam. Unpublished. [15-2556]

Case: 15-2556

Document: 00117056895

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/19/2016

Entry ID: 6033930

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-2556
NANCY LEE BAILEY,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP and SEAN ANGLES,
Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Christopher J. Trombetta for appellant.
Mark W. Batten, with whom Proskauer Rose LLP was on brief,
for Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP.
Andrew T. O'Connor, Joshua M. Davis, Kelly A. Schwartz, and
Goulston & Storrs PC on brief for Sean Angles.

September 19, 2016

Case: 15-2556

Document: 00117056895

PER CURIAM.

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/19/2016

Entry ID: 6033930

After careful review of the briefs and

consideration of oral arguments in this matter, we summarily affirm
the district court's entry of summary judgment for defendants on
plaintiff's

state-law

retaliation

claim.1

See

Bailey

v.

Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, No. 1:14-cv-10141 (D. Mass. Nov. 18,
2015); 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

We agree with the district court that

there was insufficient record evidence to support the conclusion
that Defendant-Appellee Sean Angles, the sole alleged retaliator
in this case, was aware of plaintiff's protected activity when he
engaged in the allegedly retaliatory conduct.

See, e.g., Ponte v.

Steelcase Inc., 741 F.3d 310, 323 n.11 (1st Cir. 2014).

Because

we affirm on this basis, we need not address the other aspects of
the district court's reasoning.

1

Plaintiff does not challenge
district court's ruling on appeal.

- 2 -

any

other

aspect

of

the