Karen Mead v. Fairpoint

2017 DNH 206

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 22, 2017
• Docket: 15-cv-310-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.