March v. Technical Employment
This text of 2000 DNH 216 (March v. Technical Employment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
March v. Technical Employment CV-98-636-M 10/18/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Christine March, Plaintiff
v. Civil No. 98-636-M Opinion No. 2000 DNH 216 Technical Employment Services, Inc. and Daniel Duncanson, Defendants
O R D E R
Christine March brings this Title VII action against her
former employer. Technical Employment Services, Inc. ("TEST").
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seg. She also brings a state common law
claim for assault and battery against Daniel Duncanson, her
former supervisor, over which she asks the court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). By prior
order, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss. Defendants now move for summary judgment as
to all remaining aspects of plaintiff's complaint.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
and construing all reasonable inferences in her favor, it is plain that there remain genuinely disputed issues of material
fact. If a jury were to credit plaintiff's evidence and the
testimony of the witnesses whose affidavits she has supplied, it
could reasonably conclude that plaintiff was subjected to a
hostile work environment, permeated by inappropriate sexual
conduct on the part of Duncanson that was both severe and
pervasive. See generally Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510
U.S. 17 (1993); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57
(1986). See also Exhibit A to plaintiff's objection. Transcript
of testimony before New Hampshire Human Rights Commission;
Exhibit B, Affidavit of Karen Tardivo.
Similarly, as to plaintiff's state law claim, a trier of
fact could reasonably conclude that, on one or more occasions,
Duncanson subjected plaintiff to unwelcome and offensive
touching, thereby committing common law assault and/or battery.
See generally Yale v. Town of Allenstown, 969 F. Supp. 798, 801
(D.N.H. 1997); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 18, 19, 21(1).
See also Exhibit A to plaintiff's objection. Transcript of
2 testimony before New Hampshire Human Rights Commission; Exhibit
B, Affidavit of Karen Tardivo.
In light of the foregoing, defendants' motion for summary
judgment (document no. 24) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge
October 18, 2000
cc: Nancy Richards-Stower, Esg. Linda S. Johnson, Esg.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2000 DNH 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/march-v-technical-employment-nhd-2000.