Mead v. Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Filing 100

ORDER denying 44 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to plaintiff's gender discrimination/hostile environment claims. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Karen Mead,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 15-cv-310-SM
Opinion No. 2017 DNH 206

Fairpoint Communications, Inc.,
Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant moves for summary judgment with respect to
plaintiff’s gender discrimination/hostile environment claims
(Counts II and IV).

But taking the facts as pled and construing

the record evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiff, the
party opposing summary disposition, the motion cannot be
granted.

It is plain that numerous material facts are genuinely
disputed with respect to, inter alia, the meaning and import of
comments made by a controlling executive and plaintiff’s
superior (Amburn) that could be found to evince a gender-based
discriminatory animus, gender stereotyping, and gender biases
permeating decision-making regarding plaintiff’s career with the
company.

See Burns v. Johnson, 829 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2016).

In context, and in combination with other evidence, a jury may
find the work environment to have been hostile and

1 

discriminatory and the alleged harassment severe and perverse.
See Flood v. Bank of Am. Corp., 780 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2015).
In addition, plaintiff offers evidence suggesting that she was
excluded from critical meetings and conferences based on her
gender; stripped of areas of responsibility (e.g. labor
relations) based on gender stereotyping; deprived of social
opportunities that were readily provided to male counterparts opportunities that served as pathways to corporate advancement and generally was increasingly excluded from and denied access
to traditional means of advancement easily accessed by her male
counterparts.

Plaintiff has also offered evidence of apparent

retaliation for having complained about discriminatory practices
as she perceived them to be.

All of which, cumulatively, could

permit a jury finding in her favor on her gender
discrimination/hostile environment claims.

While the extensive briefing on both sides is helpful and
will be useful in trial preparation, it serves to make very
clear that summary judgment is not appropriate and these claims
require a trial resolution.

2 

Conclusion
The motion for summary judgment with regard to plaintiff’s
gender discrimination/hostile environment claims (document no.
44) is necessarily denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
September 22, 2017
cc:

Brooke L. L. Shilo, Esq.
Lauren S. Irwin, Esq.
Heather M. Burns, Esq.
Martha Van Oot, Esq. 

3