PRINCIPATO v. SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY

Filing 43

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 33 Motion for Summary Judgment By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (jib)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RICHARD PRINCIPATO,
PLAINTIFF
V.

SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY
COMPANY,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-73-DBH

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that its
“investigation” of the plaintiff could not amount to adverse action is DENIED for
the same reasons as in the decision and order on summary judgment in Short
v. Springfield Terminal Railway Co., Civil No. 2:16-cv-74-DBH. There are some
differences in the testimony about what the plaintiff feared, but ultimately there
is a jury question.
However, I conclude that the plaintiff has forfeited any direct claim of
denied medical attention because he has failed to respond to the defendant’s
statute of limitations argument.

It is arguable, judging from the one-count

Complaint (ECF No. 1), that no such claim was ever made in the first place; but
even if it had been, and even setting aside forfeiture, the plaintiff explicitly
“abandon[ed]

his

claim

regarding

interference

with

immediate

medical

treatment.” Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 37) at 3.

He can, however, argue at trial that the request for medical attention was part of
the protected activity for which the Railway retaliated against him.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2