HIKEL v. TOWN OF MADISON

Filing 41

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 37 Report and Recommendations for 22 Motion for Summary Judgment By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (nwd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOY B. HIKEL,
PLAINTIFF
V.

TOWN OF MADISON,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-75-DBH

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART
THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 5, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court,
with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision on Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Objections to the Recommended Decision were filed by the
plaintiff and the defendant on June 20 and June 23, 2014, respectively. I have
reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire
record. I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Recommended Decision. I

OVERRULE

the defendant’s objection and

SUSTAIN

the

plaintiff’s objection, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
Therefore, I

AFFIRM IN PART

and

REJECT IN PART

the recommendations of the

United States Magistrate Judge, as stated below.
On her sex discrimination claim, the plaintiff provided evidence as to how
the actions and decisions (amount of raises and vacation time; budget scrutiny;
yelling by Town Manager; move to a new office), when compared with treatment

of other similarly situated personnel, correlated specifically with gender. The
Magistrate Judge has certainly laid out reasons why a factfinder might find no
sex discrimination, gauging the Town’s evidence of independent reasons more
persuasive than the plaintiff’s claim of sex discrimination. But I conclude that
this weighing of the inferences is for the factfinder, especially when coupled with
the evidence here of pretext, which the Magistrate Judge detailed with respect to
the retaliation claim. See DeCaire v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir. 2008)
(“To the extent the district court said it required DeCaire to present evidence
beyond disproving the government’s arguments as pretext, that was error.”).
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby AFFIRMED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. The defendant’s motion
for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count IV and DENIED as to Counts I, II
and III.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2