Suppi Construction, Inc. v. Melissa R. Sadowski

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 108, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SUPPI CONSTRUCTION, INC., § § No. 108, 2026 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N22C-11-149 MELISSA R. SADOWSKI, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 9, 2026 Decided: May 14, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order and its

exhibits, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 14, 2022, Melissa Sadowski filed a discrimination charge

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), alleging that

Suppi Construction, Inc. (“SCI”) had engaged in gender discrimination during the

2021 calendar year.1 Days later, Sadowski amended the charge to include the

Delaware Department of Labor (the “DDOL”) and alleged that SCI had engaged in

gender discrimination and retaliation between August 15, 2021, and August 24,

1 The parties dispute whether Sadowski was an employee of SCI or an independent contractor. 2021. The EEOC issued Sadowski a right-to-sue notice on August 18, 2022. On

November 16, 2022, Sadowski filed suit against SCI and one of its founders, Carl

Suppi (together with SCI, “Defendants”), in the Superior Court. After the DDOL

issued Sadowski a right-to-sue notice on February 27, 2023, Sadowski amended her

complaint. As amended, Sadowski’s complaint set forth seven causes of action,

including gender discrimination and retaliation under the Delaware Discrimination

in Employment Act (the “DDEA”) against SCI.

(2) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other

things, that Sadowski had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the

DDEA and that Sadowski’s complaint otherwise failed to state a claim. On

November 30, 2023, the Superior Court partially denied Defendants’ motion to

dismiss (the “MTD Decision”).2 Relevant here, the court found that Sadowski’s

amended complaint “support[ed] a reasonable inference that Sadowski dually filed

the Amended Charge with the DDOL [and the EEOC] because it allege[d] that she

received a DDOL Right to Sue Letter.”3 The court therefore found that Sadowski

had exhausted her administrative remedies under the DDEA. The court also held that

Sadowski’s complaint had sufficiently pleaded claims for gender discrimination and

retaliation under the DDEA. SCI did not ask the Superior Court to certify an

2 Sadowski v. Suppi Constr., Inc., 2023 WL 8282052 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2023). 3 Id. at *5. 2 interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision or file a notice of appeal of the MTD

Decision in this Court.

(3) After discovery closed, Defendants moved for summary judgment,

arguing in part that Sadowski had failed to show that SCI had engaged in gender

discrimination because she had “failed to put forth any similarly situated males that

were treated more favorably than her”4 and that Sadowski was unable to show that

SCI’s stated reason for removing Sadowski from the workplace was pretextual under

the McDonell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.5 On February 5, 2026, the court

partially denied SCI’s motion in a bench ruling (the “MSJ Ruling”). Relevant here,

the court noted that “the fact that there may be no suitable comparator does not afford

the … employer carte blanche to discriminate, and Mr. Suppi may be viewed as an

appropriate comparator [because] he operated in the same space as Sadowski[,]

issuing instructions and guiding work crews,” and found that “a reasonable juror

could conclude that the male worker, Mr. Suppi, was treated more favorably than

his female counterpart, Ms. Sadowski.”6 The Superior Court also found that

Sadowski was able to show that “a reasonable fact-finder could disbelieve SCI’s

articulated legitimate reason” for its conduct.7

4 Sadowski v. Suppi Constr., Inc., 2026 WL 659122, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2026). 5 McDonnell-Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973). 6 Notice of Appeal, Ex. B-1 at 20-21 (Tr. of MSJ Ruling). 7 Id. at 22. 3 (4) On February 16, 2026, SCI asked the Superior Court to certify an

interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision and the MSJ Ruling under Supreme Court

Rule 42. In its application, SCI acknowledged that its request for the certification of

an interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision was untimely but argued that good

cause excused its delay and that the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors favored certification. SCI

also argued that the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors favored the certification of an

interlocutory appeal of the MSJ Ruling. Sadowski opposed the application.

(5) On March 9, 2026, the Superior Court denied SCI’s application.8 First,

the court found that SCI had not shown good cause to excuse its untimely application

for the certification of an interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision. Second, the

court did not find that the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors cited by SCI supported the

certification of an interlocutory appeal of the MSJ Ruling. To the contrary, the court

found that neither factor A (the interlocutory order involves a novel question of law)

nor factor C (the question of law relates to the constitutionality, construction, or

application of a statute) weighed in favor of certification because the MSJ Ruling

merely applied settled jurisprudence to the facts of this case. And the court found

that factor G (interlocutory review would end the litigation) did not support

certification because the case would continue against Suppi regardless. Finally, the

court concluded that because neither party faced serious harm in the absence of

8 Sadowski, 2026 WL 659122. 4 interlocutory review, factor H (interlocutory review may serve considerations of

justice) did not justify certification.

(6) We agree that interlocutory review is not warranted here. As SCI

acknowledges in its notice of appeal from an interlocutory order, its application for

the certification of an interlocutory appeal of the MTD Decision was untimely filed

in the Superior Court. While the Superior Court may, for good cause shown, extend

the deadline for the filing of an application for certification,9 Rule 42 provides that

the appellant must file in this Court a notice of appeal of an interlocutory order within

thirty days after the order from which the appeal is sought to be taken is entered.10

SCI filed its notice of appeal from the MTD Decision in this Court on March 9,

2026—more than two years after the decision was issued—and is refused.

(7) We also decline to accept an interlocutory appeal of the MSJ Ruling.

Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the

Court.11 Giving due weight to the Superior Court’s analysis and in the exercise of

our discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review

does not meet the strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).

Interlocutory review would not terminate the litigation, exceptional circumstances

9 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i). 10 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(i). 11 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(d)(v). 5 that would merit interlocutory review of the MSJ Decision do not exist in this case,12

and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency,

disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.13

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

12 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(ii). 13 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 6