Nwagbaraocha v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center et al

Filing 50

///ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. The court grants summary judgment to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center on counts IX and X. It also grants summary judgment to Macht with respect to counts I through IV. The motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied. So Ordered by Chief Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John S. Nwagbaraocha
v.

Civil No. 18-cv-304-LM
Opinion No. 2019 DNH 185

Dartmouth Hitchcock
Medical Center et al.
O R D E R
Plaintiff Father John S. Nwagbaraocha, a Catholic priest,
brings this suit against his former employer, DartmouthHitchcock Medical Center (“D-H”),1 and his former supervisor,
Reverend Frank Macht.
all plaintiff’s claims.
no. 34.

Defendants move for summary judgment on
Doc. no. 28.

Plaintiff objects.

Doc.

On October 25, 2019, the court heard oral argument on

defendants’ motion.

After hearing the parties’ arguments, the

court ruled on the motion from the bench.

This order provides a

summary of the court’s oral rulings on each of plaintiff’s
claims.

Claims Against Dartmouth-Hitchcock Entities
Counts I through III allege that D-H discriminated against
plaintiff on the basis of his national origin, race, and

Plaintiff also sues the following related entities:
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital,
and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health. The designation “D-H” refers to
all the Dartmouth-Hitchcock entities collectively.
1

religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Similarly, counts V through VII allege that D-H discriminated
against plaintiff on the basis of national origin, race, and
religion in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated § (“RSA”) 354-A:7.

As explained at the hearing, there

is sufficient evidence in the record for the Title VII claims
and their state analogs to survive summary judgment.
Count IV alleges that D-H discriminated against plaintiff
based on his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623.

Count VIII asserts a

parallel claim under state law: that D-H discriminated against
plaintiff on the basis of his age in violation of RSA 354-A:7.
For the reasons stated on the record, there is sufficient
evidence in the record for plaintiff’s federal and state age
discrimination claims to survive summary judgment.
Finally, counts IX and X allege violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

As plaintiff

conceded at the hearing, D-H is entitled to summary judgment on
these counts.
To summarize: the motion for summary judgment is granted on
counts IX and X and denied as to counts I through VIII against
D-H.

2

Claims Against Reverend Frank Macht Individually
Counts I through III allege that Macht discriminated
against plaintiff on the basis of his national origin, race, and
religion in violation of Title VII.

Count IV asserts a claim of

age discrimination under the ADEA against Macht.

As plaintiff

conceded at the hearing, individuals may not be held liable
under Title VII or the ADEA.

See Fantini v. Salem State Coll.,

557 F.3d 22, 31 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that there can be no
individual liability under Title VII and dismissing claims
against individual employee defendants); Ventura v. Hanitchak,
719 F. Supp. 2d 132, 137 (D. Mass. 2010) (same under Title VII
and ADEA).

Accordingly, Macht is entitled to summary judgment

on counts I through IV.
Counts V through VIII assert that Macht discriminated
against plaintiff on the basis of his national origin, race,
religion, and age, in violation of RSA 354-A:7.

Although Macht

argues that individuals cannot be held liable under the New
Hampshire discrimination statute, the New Hampshire Supreme
Court has held to the contrary.

See

U.S. Equal Emp’t Opp.

Comm’n v. Fred Fuller Oil Co., 168 N.H. 606, 612 (2016) (holding
that, under RSA chapter 354-A, individuals may be held liable
for “aiding and abetting” discrimination).

Macht did not

address this precedent or explain why he is entitled to summary
judgment given that decision.

At oral argument, defense counsel
3

conceded that—to the extent the RSA chapter 354-A claims against
D-H survive—these claims also survive as against Macht
individually.

Accordingly, the court denies Macht’s request for

summary judgment on counts V through VIII.
In sum, the court grants the motion for summary judgment
with respect to Macht on counts I through IV and denies it with
respect to counts V through VIII.

Summary
The court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(doc. no. 28) in part and denies it in part.
summary judgment to D-H on counts IX and X.

The court grants
It also grants

summary judgment to Macht with respect to counts I through IV.
The motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied.

The

following claims survive summary judgment: counts I through VIII
against D-H (the Title VII and ADEA claims and their state
analogs) and counts V through VIII against Macht (the New
Hampshire discrimination claims).
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
October 28, 2019
cc:

Counsel of Record
4