United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019-04-22
42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; pro se Title VII race-discrimination (disparate treatment) claim by a temporary worker; Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted as to the individual supervisor and denied as to Staples (D. Mass.); state c. 151B claims dismissed as time-barred; result: mixed; claim: (a)
Uncertainty
Element employer: holding: Staples' status as employer of an agency-placed temp is assumed by the court, never analysed; recorded as pleaded because the court's own analysis calls Staples "her employer".
Element because-of: route: the inference rests on the change in treatment after the supervisor learned plaintiff's race (timing relative to disclosure) together with the segregated seating; no narrower route covers "differential treatment without a named comparator".
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 33
Elements 7–12 of 33
| Case | labor-organization-route statutory route or exception | training-program statutory route or exception | Impermissible motivating factor in mixed-motive cases (§ 2000e-2(m)) | Bona fide occupational qualification (§ 2000e-2(e)(1)) | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 33
| Case | Bona fide seniority/merit system or professionally developed ability test (§ 2000e-2(h)) | Failure to reasonably accommodate religious observance or practice (§§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(j)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | communist-organization statutory route or exception | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | indian-preference statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 33
| Case | Subsection (n) limits challenges to covered litigated or consent judgments or orders | judgment-order-scope statutory route or exception | k2-intentional-limit statutory route or exception | k3-controlled-substance statutory route or exception | labor-organization-causation statutory route or exception | national-security statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 33
| Case | no-preference-imbalance statutory route or exception | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | religious-institution statutory route or exception | test-score-discrimination statutory route or exception | Rejected "bottom-line" racial or gender balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–33 of 33
| Case | Strong-basis-in-evidence defense for race-conscious action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability (Ricci v. DeStefano) | Rejected defense that an adverse CBA arbitration precludes a Title VII action (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver) | Mixed-motive same-decision partial affirmative defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a) | early-termination-of-temporary-placement | According to Plaintiff, this assignment was meant to end in August 2015.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [988:1060] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Her employer took an adverse action against her by terminating her employment earlier than expected.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [13766:13866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a) | segregated-workspace-and-ostracism-once-supervisor-learned-race-then-early-termination | Finally, Plaintiff alleges that after Ms. Dagg learned her race, she was ostracized in the office.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [14077:14175] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Her emails were ignored, she was never trained to do her job, and she was made to work in a separate and smaller workspace.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [14176:14299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.At this stage, a "plaintiff must allege a series of facts which at the very least gives rise to an inference of discriminatory animus."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [14511:14646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Taking these allegations as true, it is plausible that Plaintiff was treated differently, and ultimately fired, because of her race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [14378:14510] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a); party: Jessica Dagg, individual supervisor; subject: party=Jessica Dagg, individual supervisor | supervisor-who-hired-and-fired-plaintiff-sued-personally | Ms. Dagg was an employee of Staples and not Plaintiff's employer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [10372:10437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Title VII does not provide for individual employee liability.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [10175:10236] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Accordingly, Plaintiff's Title VII claims against Ms. Dagg are dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [10438:10511] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a); party: Staples Contract & Commercial LLC; subject: party=Staples Contract & Commercial LLC Not contested: the court treats Staples as "her employer" without discussing the staffing-agency placement. | temp-agency-worker-placed-with-client-company | On April 13, 2015, Kforce Professional Staffing ("Kforce") placed Plaintiff in a temporary assignment with Staples to assist Ms. Dagg's project team with clean-up of procurement databases.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [799:987] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Her employer took an adverse action against her by terminating her employment earlier than expected.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [13766:13866] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a) | person-of-color | When she began her employment, and Ms. Dagg learned Plaintiff's race, Plaintiff was placed at a "countertop space" to work with the only other person of color in the office even though there were several cubicles available.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [1142:1365] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [13575:13618] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |
| Evans v. Staples, Inc. — 375 F. Supp. 3d 117 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a) | hired-after-credential-review-and-phone-interview | Plaintiff was initially interviewed for the position over the phone by Ms. Dagg.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [1061:1141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.On May 22, 2015, Ms. Dagg terminated Plaintiff's contract, purportedly due to her lack of technical skills.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [1678:1785] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090.It is plausible that she was qualified for her position since Ms. Dagg hired her after reviewing her credentials and conducting a phone interview.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_375.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/375/0117-01; Unicode character offsets [13619:13765] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6049c9626d71ce89b276768b61451e839fe24594dfab66b83a74acb956c07090. |