Employment – Retaliation

Listen to this article

Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the motion should be allowed because of a lack of evidence that the ultimate decision-maker had any knowledge of the plaintiff’s parental leave request when he decided to fire the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff Michael Wyman brings this action against Defendant New Era Technology, Inc. (‘New Era’), alleging retaliation and failure to restore him to his position following parental leave in violation of the Massachusetts Paid Family Medical Leave Act (‘PFMLA’). Before the Court is New Era’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant New Era’s motion. …

“… Mr. Wyman reported to Paul Schneider, who was New Era’s U.S. Vice President of Operations. …

“One of the accounts Mr. Wyman managed to provide onsite audiovisual services to Samsung (the ‘Samsung Account’). … At Mr. Doherty’s request, Mr. Schneider investigated the matter. …

“Around July 2023, Sean Doherty, New Era’s Technology Services Group President, developed concerns about the billing on the Samsung Account. …

“… Mr. Doherty made the decision to fire Mr. Wyman. … When making this decision, Mr. Doherty was not aware that Mr. Wyman’s wife was pregnant or that Mr. Wyman planned to take parental leave. …

“The Court assumes without deciding that Mr. Wyman has established a prima facie case of retaliation and that New Era has identified a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Mr. Wyman based on the overtime billing issues. …

“… There is no evidence beyond Mr. Wyman’s speculation that Mr. Doherty had any knowledge of Mr. Wyman’s parental leave request when he decided to fire Mr. Wyman. …

“… On the record before it, the Court cannot conclude that a reasonable jury could find — without resorting to unsupported speculation — that Mr. Doherty was aware of Mr. Wyman’s leave when he made the decision to fire Mr. Wyman. …

“As an alternative, Mr. Wyman argues that a reasonable jury could find New Era liable under the ‘cat’s paw theory.’ … Under the cat’s paw theory, corporate liability attaches when, ‘motivated by retaliatory animus,’ a supervisor provides ‘false or misleading information to a decisionmaker.’ …

“Here, there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude that Mr. Schneider acted with retaliatory animus in reporting the unbilled overtime to Mr. Doherty. …

“… Mr. Wyman has not offered evidence of retaliatory animus on anyone’s part sufficient to raise a disputed question of fact, and thus there can be no pretext. As such, New Era is entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim.”

Wyman v. New Era Technology, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-590-25) (13 pages) (Murphy, J.) (Civil Action No. 24-11450-BEM) (Oct. 28, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.