Bailey v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, No. 15-2556 (1st Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 15-2556 NANCY LEE BAILEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP and SEAN ANGLES, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge] Before Howard, Chief Judge, Selya and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Christopher J. Trombetta for appellant. Mark W. Batten, with whom Proskauer Rose LLP was on brief, for Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP. Andrew T. O'Connor, Joshua M. Davis, Kelly A. Schwartz, and Goulston & Storrs PC on brief for Sean Angles. September 19, 2016 PER CURIAM. After careful review of the briefs and consideration of oral arguments in this matter, we summarily affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's state-law retaliation claim.1 See Bailey v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, No. 1:14-cv-10141 (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2015); 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). We agree with the district court that there was insufficient record evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant-Appellee Sean Angles, the sole alleged retaliator in this case, was aware of plaintiff's protected activity when he engaged in the allegedly retaliatory conduct. See, e.g., Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 741 F.3d 310, 323 n.11 (1st Cir. 2014). Because we affirm on this basis, we need not address the other aspects of the district court's reasoning. 1 Plaintiff does not challenge district court's ruling on appeal. - 2 - any other aspect of the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.