UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard Dennis,

Plaintiff

v. Civil No. 06-cv-029-SM

Opinion No. 2007 DNH 117

Osram Sylvania, Inc.,

Defendant

O R D E R

This case was removed from the New Hampshire Superior Court. 

The plaintiff, Richard Dennis, is suing Osram Sylvania, Inc., in

one count, asserting that the company violated New Hampshire

Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) § 354-A by terminating his

employment in retaliation for his having given deposition

testimony critical of the company in another RSA 354-A case

brought against it by a former employee. Before the court are

defendant’s motion for summary judgment (document no. 12) and

motions to strike filed by both plaintiff (document no. 13) and

defendant (document no. 24). Each motion is duly opposed. For

the reasons given, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

granted; plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied; and defendant’s

motion to strike is moot.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 25
2

Document no. 13

In his motion to strike, plaintiff challenges various

attachments to defense counsel’s affidavit (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J.,

Ex. A), on hearsay and authentication grounds. He also

challenges the declarations of Attorneys Pamela Tracey (id., Ex.

C) and Nicole Vient (id., Ex. D) on a variety of grounds. As it

relates to the attachments to Attorney Parent’s affidavit,

plaintiff’s motion is denied for the reasons stated in

defendant’s objection (document no. 16). With regard to

plaintiff’s objections to various statements in the declarations

of Attorneys Tracey and Vient, the court will disregard any

portions of those declarations that are not properly based upon

personal knowledge of relevant facts. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion to strike (document no. 13) is denied.

Document no. 24

In its motion to strike, defendant challenges portions of

plaintiff’s declaration (Pl.’s Obj. to Summ. J., Ex. E) and

deposition errata sheet (id., Ex. F) that refer to a conversation

between Dennis and Attorney Paul Beckwith immediately after

Dennis was deposed in connection with a previous lawsuit charging

Sylvania with retaliation under RSA chapter 354-A. Defendant

argues that the disputed declaration and errata sheet entry are

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 25
3

impermissible attempts on plaintiff’s part to substantively

change the deposition testimony he gave in this case (see Def.’s

Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B). Because the statement by Beckwith that

plaintiff seeks to add to the record is not material to the

outcome of this case, for reasons that are explained below,

defendant’s motion to strike (document no. 24) is denied as moot.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “no

genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.

56(c). “A ‘genuine’ issue is one that could be resolved in favor

of either party, and a ‘material fact’ is one that has the

potential of affecting the outcome of the case.” Calero-Cerezo

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986)). 

“The role of summary judgment is to pierce the boilerplate of the

pleadings and provide a means for prompt disposition of cases in

which no trial-worthy issue exists.” Quinn v. City of Boston,

325 F.3d 18, 28 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Suarez v. Pueblo Int’l,

Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2000)). 

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 25
4

“Once the movant has served a properly supported motion

asserting entitlement to summary judgment, the burden is on the

nonmoving party to present evidence showing the existence of a

trialworthy issue.” Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. v. Reder, 355

F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248;

Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 1990)). To

meet that burden the nonmoving party, may not rely on “bare

allegations in [his or her] unsworn pleadings or in a lawyer’s

brief.” Gulf Coast, 355 F.3d at 39 (citing Rogan v. City of

Boston, 267 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2001); Maldonado-Denis v.

Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir. 1994)). When

ruling on a party’s motion for summary judgment, the court must

view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party

and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See

Lee-Crespo v. Schering-Plough Del Caribe Inc., 354 F.3d 34, 37

(1st Cir. 2003) (citing Rivera v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewers Auth.,

331 F.3d 183, 185 (1st Cir. 2003)).

Background

Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are not in

dispute. Dennis was employed by Osram Sylvania, Inc. (“Sylvania”

or “the company”) from August 1995 until he was terminated on

March 24, 2004. At all times relevant to this matter, he was

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 25
5

employed in the human resources department. His duties included

investigating complaints made by Sylvania employees against other

employees and managing the company’s internship program. 

Sylvania’s human resources department was overseen by Geoffrey

Hunt, the company’s Senior Vice President of Communications and

Human Resources. Dennis’s direct supervisor was William Franz,

the company’s Human Resources Director. The decision to

terminate Dennis was made by Franz and Hunt. (Def.’s Mot. Summ.

J., Ex. E (Hunt Decl.) ¶ 5; id., Ex. F (Franz Decl.) ¶ 8.)

On February 5, 2004, approximately six weeks before he was

terminated, Dennis was deposed in connection with an RSA 354-A

retaliation claim brought against Sylvania by a former employee,

Nancy Green. Green alleged that after she complained to the

company that she had been sexually harassed by a co-worker named

Oscar Quiroga, two other co-workers, Donna Tilloston and Cathy

Dionne, retaliated against her by harassing her to the point that

she complained about them to her supervisor. Green also alleged

that Sylvania retaliated against her for making the Quiroga

complaint by failing to investigate her complaint against

Tilloston and Dionne in a timely manner, re-assigning her to a

different work team, failing to inform her of the status of the

investigation into the Tilloston/Dionne complaint, holding a

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 5 of 25
1 At the time of the deposition, attorney Vient went by the

name Nicole Buba.

6

public meeting about that complaint, and reprimanding her for her

reaction to the meeting. Green v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., No. 03-

135-JD, slip op. at 9-10 (D.N.H. Apr. 13, 2004). Dennis was

deposed in the Green case because he, along with Ginny

LaRochelle, investigated Green’s complaint against Tilloston and

Dionne.

At Dennis’s deposition in Green, Sylvania was represented by

Paul Beckwith, outside legal counsel. In addition, Sylvania’s

in-house Labor and Employment Counsel, Nicole Vient,1 attended

the deposition. Dennis testified that: (1) Quiroga told him that

Tilloston and Dionne had harassed Green because Green had more

seniority than they, and, as a result, if Green were to quit, one

or the other of them was more likely to retain her job in the

event of a reduction in force (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. K

(Dennis 2/5/04 Dep.) 46, 53); and (2) he had not heard that

Green’s problems with Tilloston and Dionne started when she

complained about Quiroga (id. at 45-46). Subsequently, Dennis

responded in the affirmative to the following question from

Green’s attorney: “And the conclusion you came to with Ginny was

that . . . [C]athy and Donna were picking on Nancy because of

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 6 of 25
2 In his deposition in this case, Dennis confirmed that in

his Green deposition, he testified that the Tilloston/Dionne

harassment was unrelated to Green’s complaint against Quiroga. 

(Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B (Dennis 10/11/06 Dep.) 208-09.)

7

some sort of bumping procedure possibility.” (Id. at 80.) In

other words, Dennis’s testimony supported Sylvania’s argument

that Tilloston’s and Dionne’s harassment of Green was unrelated

to Green’s prior complaint against Quiroga.2 

In response to questions from Green’s attorney about the

manner in which Sylvania responded to Green’s complaint against

Tilloston and Dionne, Dennis testified that he: (1) disagreed

with the company’s decision to resolve Green’s complaint by

holding a “team meeting” involving Green, Tilloston and Dionne,

rather than by disciplining Tilloston and Dionne (Dennis 2/5/04

Dep. 85, 100); and (2) expressed that disagreement to colleagues,

calling the company’s handling of Green’s complaint “the

stupidest thing I’ve heard, stupidest idea I’ve heard,” (id. at

107). Four days after Dennis’s deposition, Osram moved for

summary judgment in Green, and its motion was granted by order

dated April 13, 2004, approximately three weeks after Dennis was

terminated.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 7 of 25
8

There are three factual disputes concerning Dennis’s

interactions with Attorneys Beckwith and Vient during and

immediately after the Green deposition. Specifically, Dennis

contends that: (1) at one point during the deposition, Attorney

Vient rolled her eyes, indicating displeasure with his testimony

(Dennis 10/11/06 Dep. 154-57); (2) during a break in the

deposition, Attorney Beckwith instructed him to respond to a

particular line of questions by saying yes, no, or that he could

not recall (id. at 169); and (3) after the deposition, Attorney

Beckwith told him that part of his testimony was helpful to

Sylvania but part of it was not as helpful (Pl.’s Obj. to Summ.

J., Ex. D (Dennis Decl.) ¶ 5; id., Ex. F (errata sheet for

10/11/06 deposition)). Attorney Vient states that she does not

recall rolling her eyes (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D (Vient

Decl.) ¶ 8), and Attorney Beckwith states that he did not

instruct Dennis “to limit his deposition answers to yes, no or I

do not recall,” (id., Ex. L (Beckwith Decl.) ¶ 7), and that he

“told Mr. Dennis he did fine [and] never told Mr. Dennis that his

deposition testimony . . . was in any way adverse or harmful to

Sylvania” (id. ¶ 9). Because these three areas of factual

dispute concern matters that are not material to the outcome of

this case, they do not preclude summary judgment.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 8 of 25
9

After Dennis’s deposition in Green, Attorney Beckwith

telephoned Sylvania’s Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, Pamela

Tracey, and “told her that . . . Dennis’ deposition went fine . .

. [and] that, based on Mr. Dennis[’s] and the other witness

testimony, Sylvania would be entitled to summary judgment in the

Green litigation.” (Beckwith Decl. ¶ 10; see also Def.’s Mot.

Summ. J., Ex. C (Tracey Decl.) ¶ 6.) Moreover, Attorney Beckwith

“never told Attorney Tracey or any other Sylvania employee that

the substance of Mr. Dennis’ testimony was in any way harmful to

Sylvania.” (Beckwith Decl. ¶ 10.) At his deposition in this

case, Dennis conceded that he had “no evidence” that Attorney

Beckwith reported to anyone at Sylvania that his deposition

testimony had harmed the company’s case in Green. (Dennis

10/11/06 Dep. 209-10.) Finally, Attorney Beckwith was not

involved in any way in the decision to terminate Dennis. 

(Beckwith Decl. ¶ 13.)

Similarly, Attorney Vient did not report to her superior,

Attorney Tracey, that Dennis “had provided any adverse testimony

in his deposition,” (Vient Decl. ¶ 8), and did not tell anyone

else at Sylvania that “Dennis’s deposition testimony was in any

way adverse or harmful to the company,” (Vient Decl. ¶ 15). At

his deposition in this case, Dennis conceded that he had no

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 9 of 25
10

evidence other than the “time frame” to substantiate his belief

that Attorney Vient reported to anyone at Sylvania that his

deposition testimony had harmed the company’s case in Green. 

(Dennis 10/11/06 Dep. 210). Like Attorney Beckwith, Attorney

Vient was not involved in the decision to terminate Dennis’s

employment. (Vient Decl. ¶ 13.)

As noted above, the decision to terminate Dennis was made by

Franz and Hunt. At the time they made that decision, neither

Franz nor Hunt knew anything about Dennis’s deposition testimony

in the Green case (Franz Decl. ¶ 4; Hunt Decl. ¶ 7), and neither

had been told that Dennis had provided testimony that was in any

way adverse to Sylvania (Franz Decl. ¶ 4; Hunt Decl. ¶ 8). 

The letter notifying Dennis of his termination did not give

a reason. (Pl.’s Obj. to Summ. J., Ex. Z.) In declarations

submitted in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

Franz and Hunt both state that they terminated Dennis because the

human resources department was undergoing a reduction in force,

and given the need to eliminate an employee, they preferred to

retain Leah Weinberg rather than Dennis, due to Dennis’s history

of inappropriate conduct. (Franz Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Hunt Decl. ¶ 5.) 

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 10 of 25
11

In April 2001, Kim Serrechia, an intern who reported

directly to Dennis, complained to Sylvania about Dennis’s

behavior toward her. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A2.) That

complaint resulted in a written warning in which Dennis was

reprimanded for inappropriate use of company e-mail and failure

to use appropriate managerial judgment. (Id., Ex. A3.) The

written warning was placed in Dennis’s personnel file. (Id.)

On January 28, 2004, approximately one week before Dennis’s

deposition in Green, Sylvania received a complaint about Dennis

from Miguel Molina, a former intern who was under consideration

for another internship with the company. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J.,

Ex. A4.) Molina’s complaint stemmed from a face-to-face

encounter with Dennis and a subsequent telephone conversation

with him. Molina’s complaint resulted in an investigation

initiated by Hunt (Hunt Decl. ¶ 3; Tracey Decl. ¶ 8), directed by

Attorney Tracey (Tracey Decl. ¶ 9; Vient Decl. ¶ 10), and

conducted by Attorney Vient (Tracey Decl. ¶ 9; Vient Decl. ¶ 10). 

Attorney Vient conducted her first interview the day after Dennis

gave his deposition in Green. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A5.) 

Based upon Attorney Vient’s findings, Attorney Tracey determined

that Dennis’s conduct was inappropriate (Tracey Decl. ¶ 11), and

further determined, in consultation with Franz and Hunt, that a

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 11 of 25
12

written warning should be given to Dennis and placed in his

personnel file (Tracey Decl. ¶ 12; Franz Decl. ¶ 6; Hunt Decl. ¶

4). 

On February 23, Franz met with Dennis to discuss the written

warning. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A6.) At that meeting,

Dennis refused to sign the warning and told Franz that he viewed

the Molina investigation and the resulting warning as retaliation

for his deposition testimony in Green. (Dennis Decl. ¶ 31; Franz

Decl. ¶ 7.) According to Dennis, when he accused Franz of

retaliating against him for his deposition testimony in Green,

Franz “looked away . . . and said he knew nothing about that.” 

(Dennis Decl. ¶ 32.) In Dennis’s view, Franz’s failure to look

him in the eye when Franz said he did not know about the Green

deposition demonstrated that he, Franz, was not telling the

truth. (Dennis 10/11/06 Dep. 75-76.) However, Dennis concedes

that his perception of Franz’s body language is the only evidence

available to support his claim that Franz knew about his

testimony in the Green deposition. (Id. at 77.) Franz does not

recall looking away during his conversation with Dennis (Franz

Decl. ¶ 7), but does recall telling Dennis he knew nothing about

his Green deposition (id.).

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 12 of 25
13

Discussion

Dennis claims that his termination violated RSA 354-A:19,

because Sylvania fired him due to the company’s displeasure with

his deposition testimony in Green. Defendant moves for summary

judgment, arguing that: (1) plaintiff cannot prove a prima facie

case of retaliation because there is neither evidence of a causal

connection between plaintiff’s deposition testimony and his

termination, nor evidence from which a reasonable inference of

causation may be drawn; and (2) even if plaintiff can prove a

prima facie case, he was terminated for a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, and cannot prove that defendant’s

proffered reasons were pretextual. Plaintiff defends by pointing

to more than a dozen disputed factual matters which, in his view,

preclude summary judgment. These factual disputes generally fall

into three categories: (1) some are related to the validity of

the disciplinary action taken against Dennis in the Serrechia

matter, and Dennis’s claim that the company promised to expunge

records of the Serrechia discipline from his personnel file; (2)

others concern the correctness of the disciplinary action taken

against Dennis in the Molina matter; and (3) others concern the

harmfulness to Sylvania of Dennis’s deposition testimony in Green

and the responses of Attorneys Beckwith and Vient to that

testimony during and after the deposition. Plaintiff also

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 13 of 25
14

hypothesizes that there may be material factual disputes

concerning Leah Weinberg’s compliance with Sylvania’s human

resources standards, but he does not identify any particular

disputes, on grounds that he has yet to receive pertinent

discovery. As discussed more fully below, however, because it is

undisputed that the Sylvania decisionmakers who terminated

plaintiff knew nothing about his deposition testimony in Green,

none of the disputes plaintiff identifies concern facts that are

material. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 19.

Under New Hampshire law, “[i]t shall be an unlawful

discriminatory practice for any person engaged in activity to

which [RSA 354-A] applies to discharge . . . any person . . .

because he has . . . testified or assisted in any proceeding

under this chapter.” RSA 354-A:19. It is well established that

in matters of first impression arising under RSA chapter 354-A,

the New Hampshire Supreme Court “rel[ies] upon cases developed

under Title VII to aid in [its] analysis.” N.H. Dep’t of Corr.

v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 680 (2002) (citing Scarborough v.

Arnold, 117 N.H. 803, 807 (1977)). To prevail upon a retaliation

claim under RSA chapter 354-A, a plaintiff must “demonstrate

that: (1) [he] engaged in a statutorily-protected activity; (2)

[he] suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the protected

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 14 of 25
3 Plaintiff, relying upon Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539

U.S. 90 (2003), argues that he is also entitled to a “mixed

motive” analysis, see Montplaisir, 147 N.H. at 301 (explaining

that under “mixed motive” analysis, the “burden of persuasion

shifts to the employer to show that despite [its] retaliatory

animus, it would have made the same adverse employment decision

for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons”) (citing Price

Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 277-78 (1989) (O’Connor, J.,

concurring)). In plaintiff’s view, the New Hampshire Supreme

Court, if asked to do so, would adopt the United States Supreme

Court’s position and hold that “direct evidence of [retaliation]

is not required in mixed-motive cases.” Desert Palace, 539 U.S.

at 101-02. That may be, but because plaintiff has not produced

even circumstantial evidence of retaliatory animus, as discussed

more fully below, it is not necessary to predict whether the New

Hampshire Supreme Court would adopt the reasoning of Desert

Palace.

15

activity and the adverse employment action were causally

connected.” Madeja v. MPB Corp., 149 N.H. 371, 378 (2003)

(citing Marrero v. Goya of P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 22 (1st Cir.

2002); Montplaisir, 147 N.H. 297, 300-01 (2001)).

 

In New Hampshire, if “there is only circumstantial evidence

of retaliation, then the ‘pretext’ approach [to proving

retaliation] applies.” Montplaisir, 147 N.H. at 300 (citing

Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53

(1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05

(1973)).3 “Under the ‘pretext’ or McDonnell Douglas scheme, the

employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie

case of unlawful conduct.” Montplaisir, 147 N.H. at 300-01

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 15 of 25
16

(citation omitted). “Establishing a prima facie case of

retaliation creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully

retaliated against the employee.” Id. at 301 (citation omitted). 

“This presumption places a burden upon the employer to rebut the

prima facie case – i.e., the burden to produce evidence that the

adverse employment action was taken for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons.” Id. (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v.

Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993)). “The burden placed upon the

employer is only a burden of production; the employee retains the

burden of persuasion.” Id. (citations omitted). 

“If the employer satisfies its burden of production, the

presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted and ‘drops

from the case.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The employee then has

the opportunity to show that the employer’s proffered reason was

not the true reason for the adverse employment action and that

retaliation was.” Id. (citation omitted). “The employee may do

this either indirectly by showing that the employer’s stated

reasons were not credible, or directly by showing that the

adverse employment action was more likely motivated by

retaliation.” Id. (citation omitted). “Under the ‘pretext’

approach, the employee retains the ultimate burden of persuading

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 16 of 25
17

the trier of fact that he or she was the victim of unlawful

retaliation.” Id. (citation omitted).

Step one of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, asserting a

prima facie case, involves “a small showing that is not onerous

and is easily made.” Che v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d

31, 38 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Koseris v. Rhode Island, 331 F.3d

207, 213 (1st Cir. 2003)). Here, plaintiff has shown that he

engaged in protected activity, i.e., provided deposition

testimony in Green, and that he suffered an adverse employment

action — his termination. Thus, he has established the first two

elements of his prima facie case. But he has failed to establish

the third element, because he has produced no evidence that Franz

or Hunt had any knowledge of his protected activity before

deciding to terminate his employment. See Pomales v. Celulares

Telefónica, Inc., 447 F.3d 79, 84-85 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding

that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case because he

produced “no evidence that . . . the CTI employee who discharged

[him] had any knowledge that [he had engaged in protected

activity]”); Koseris, 331 F.3d at 217; Santiago-Ramos v.

Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 57-58 (1st Cir.

2000); King v. Town of Hanover, 116 F.3d 965, 968 (1st Cir.

1997).

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 17 of 25
18

The prima facie case requirement is meant to impose a light

burden upon a plaintiff, and, for the sake of complete

consideration, the court will stretch the point and assume for a

moment that the elapsed time between Dennis’s deposition and the

adverse employment action was sufficient to support an inference

of causation, and will assume, as well, that plaintiff has

established a prima facie case. See Madeja, 149 N.H. at 383

(holding that plaintiff in RSA 354-A retaliation case established

prima facie case by producing evidence that she filed a sexual

harassment complaint and was terminated eight days later).

Defendant, in turn, has met its burden of producing evidence

sufficient to show that it terminated plaintiff for legitimate

non-retaliatory reasons, that is, (1) Dennis’s poor work

performance, as evidenced by the disciplinary actions imposed in

the Serrechia and Molina matters, and (2) Franz’s desire to

retain an employee other than Dennis, when he was required to

choose between them as part of a reduction in force. Because

defendant established legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for

the decision to terminate plaintiff, resolution of this case

would turn on plaintiff’s ability to meet his burden at step

three of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, if his failure to

establish a prima facie case is ignored.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 18 of 25
19

For his part, plaintiff points to more than a dozen areas of

factual dispute that, in his view, preclude summary judgment. 

These factual disputes involve either the feedback Attorneys

Beckwith and Vient gave him concerning his deposition testimony

in Green or the legitimacy of the reasons Sylvania has given for

his termination. According to Dennis, the negative reaction of

Attorneys Beckwith and Vient to his Green deposition, in

conjunction with the alleged falsity of the reasons given for his

termination, establish, for purposes of the third prong of

McDonnell Douglas, that the reasons given for his termination

were pretextual and advanced solely to mask a retaliatory motive. 

While an employee may, in some circumstances, prove that an

adverse employment decision was motivated by retaliatory animus

“indirectly by showing that the employer’s stated reasons were

not credible,” Montplaisir, 147 N.H. at 301, proof of pretext in

this case is not sufficient to demonstrate retaliatory animus. 

In this case, it is undisputed that: (1) whether or not they

conveyed a negative reaction to Dennis during or after his Green

deposition, Attorneys Beckwith and Vient said nothing negative

about plaintiff’s deposition to anyone at Sylvania; (2) the

decision to terminate plaintiff was made by Franz and Hunt; and

(3) Franz and Hunt knew nothing about plaintiff’s Green

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 19 of 25
4 As noted, Dennis’s deposition in this case includes his

assertion that Franz “looked away” when Dennis accused him of

disciplining him for the Molina matter in retaliation for his

Green deposition, and Dennis’s interpretation of that body

language to indicate that Franz was admitting knowledge of the

Green deposition. Franz does not recall that he looked away from

Dennis. Because plaintiff’s “evidence” of Franz’s knowledge was

not mentioned in his objection to summary judgment, there is no

need to consider it here. However, if that evidence were relied

on in plaintiff’s objection to summary judgment, the court would

have little trouble concluding that even if Franz did “look

away,” no reasonable jury could conclude, based upon that

evidence alone, that Franz knew about Dennis’s deposition

testimony in Green.

20

deposition.4 Those undisputed facts establish, as a matter of

law, that plaintiff’s termination was not the result of

retaliatory animus. Franz and Hunt could not have retaliated

against plaintiff for conduct they knew nothing about.

Because Franz and Hunt knew nothing about plaintiff’s Green

deposition — and plaintiff has produced no evidence to create a

trialworthy factual dispute on this point — none of the disputed

facts concerning either the responses of Attorneys Beckwith and

Vient to Dennis’s Green deposition or Sylvania’s reasons for

plaintiff’s termination are material to the resolution of this

case. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F. 3d at 19. That is, even if all

of those factual disputes were resolved in plaintiff’s favor,

defendant would still be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

At most, plaintiff might be able to prove that the reasons given

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 20 of 25
5 Because retaliation for Dennis’s Green deposition was a

logical impossibility, the company’s reliance upon the Serrechia

matter as partial grounds for his termination, despite its

alleged promise to expunge that incident from Dennis’s personnel

file, is not material. Evidence that Sylvania broke its promise

to expunge the Serrechia matter from Dennis’s personnel file

could be evidence of pretext, and might even give rise to an

inference of retaliation, but not retaliation for Dennis’s Green

deposition, which is Dennis’s claim in this case.

21

for his termination were not the real reasons, but because Franz

and Hunt knew nothing about plaintiff’s Green deposition, the

real reason for his termination could not have been his protected

conduct, and so his retaliation claim based upon that deposition

testimony necessarily fails.

Pretext can give rise to an inference of retaliation under

the right factual circumstances, but it cannot do so here, where

the undisputed factual record demonstrates that retaliation for

plaintiff’s Green deposition was a logical impossibility.5

Dennis attempts to counter the undisputed fact that neither

Franz nor Hunt knew about his Green deposition by advancing the

following theory: (1) as evidenced by her eye-rolling during the

deposition – and nothing more – Attorney Vient demonstrated her

disapproval of his testimony; (2) Attorney Vient necessarily

disapproved of plaintiff’s testimony because it was harmful to

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 21 of 25
6 While Dennis did make several comments critical of

Sylvania at his deposition, his testimony does not appear to have

been particularly harmful to Sylvania’s legal position, and

actually strongly supported the company’s position on a key issue

of retaliation.

22

her largest “client,” the Sylvania human relations department;6

and (3) based upon her disapproval, Attorney Vient retaliated

against plaintiff by manipulating her investigation into the

Molina matter in such a way as to lead Attorney Tracey to cause

Franz and Hunt to take disciplinary action against plaintiff

which, in turn, led to his dismissal approximately a month after

the tainted disciplinary action Attorney Vient prompted by

manipulating the results of her investigation. To support his

theory, plaintiff relies upon Cariglia v. Hertz Equipment Rental

Corp., 363 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2004). 

In Cariglia, an age-discrimination case brought under

Massachusetts State law, the First Circuit held that “a

corporation can be . . . liable for [age] discrimination when

neutral decisionmakers, free of any age-based animus, rely on

information that is manipulated by another employee who harbors

age-based discriminatory animus.” Id. at 79. However, even if

the New Hampshire Supreme Court were to adopt and apply the rule

in Cariglia to retaliation cases brought under RSA 354-A,

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 22 of 25
23

defendant in this case would still be entitled to judgment as a

matter of law, given the substantial factual differences between

Cariglia and this case. 

For example, in Cariglia, there was substantial evidence of

discriminatory animus on the part of the employee who manipulated

the information upon which the actual decisionmakers relied. Id.

at 80. Here, by contrast, the only evidence of Attorney Vient’s

alleged retaliatory animus is the eye-rolling that Dennis

observed during his Green deposition; he concedes that he has no

evidence that Attorney Vient ever said anything negative to him

or anyone else about his Green deposition. More importantly, the

investigation in Cariglia that produced the information that

resulted in the plaintiff’s termination was initiated by the

employee with discriminatory animus, id., while here, the

investigation Attorney Vient conducted was initiated by Hunt and

overseen by Attorney Tracey. Finally, in contrast with Cariglia,

id. at 86-87, there is no evidence that Attorney Vient either

concealed relevant evidence from Attorney Tracey or provided her

with false evidence concerning the Molina matter. Accordingly,

even if the New Hampshire Supreme Court were to adopt and apply

the theory of liability described in Cariglia, Dennis has not

identified a trialworthy factual dispute which, if resolved in

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 23 of 25
24

his favor, would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that

Attorney Vient manipulated her investigation into the Molina

matter in order to retaliate against him for his Green testimony.

Because plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case

with respect to causation, and, alternatively, because he has

failed to identify any disputed factual matter which, if resolved

in his favor, would allow him to carry his burden at the third

step of the McDonnell Douglass analysis, and, because on the

undisputed factual record, defendant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law, defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be

granted.

Conclusion

For the reasons given, plaintiff’s motion to strike

(document no. 13) is denied; defendant’s motion to strike

(document no. 24) is moot; and defendant’s motion for summary

judgment (document no. 12) is granted. Because defendant’s

motion for summary judgment is granted, all other pending motions

are denied as moot. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in

accordance with this order and close the case.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 24 of 25
25

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

September 24, 2007

cc: Nancy Richards-Stower, Esq.

Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.

Jennifer L. Parent, Esq.

Cathryn E. Vaughn, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00029-SM Document 56 Filed 09/24/07 Page 25 of 25