Santangelo v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 785 F.3d 65
• Decision Date: 06 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–1912.,14–1912.
• Parties: Peter SANTANGELO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

785 F.3d 65

Peter SANTANGELO, Plaintiff, Appellant

v.NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 14–1912.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 6, 2015.

Paula M. Minichiello, with whom Christopher G. Fallon and Law Office of Christopher G. Fallon, PC were on brief, for appellant.

Jessica Unwin Farrelly, with whom William E. Hannum III and Schwartz Hannum PC were on brief, for appellee.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, THOMPSON and BARRON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

BARRON, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was a life insurance agent with the New York Life Insurance Company for more than forty years before his termination. He now contends that he was an “employee” of New York Life and that in firing him New York Life engaged in age discrimination in violation of both state and federal law. He also argues that New York Life wrongfully refused to pay him a particular form of retirement compensation. The District Court granted summary judgment for New York Life on all of these claims, and we affirm.

I.

Peter Santangelo started as a life insurance agent with New York Life in the late 1960s.¹ His difficulties with that company started in July of 2006. That was when New York Life “Standards Consultant” John Quarella, Jr., conducted an audit of Santangelo's files. The audit turned up two forms (a dividend withdrawal form and a life insurance application) related to New York Life insurance policies that Santangelo's customers had signed before the forms were completed. A New York Life rule prohibited agents from obtaining and retaining such incomplete signed forms. The concern, presumably, was that an agent would later complete the signed form and use it to make changes that the customer had not authorized. As a result of the audit, New York Life gave Santangelo a “Letter of Reprimand” in September of 2006.

One year later, in September of 2007, Quarella conducted another audit of Santangelo's files. The audit turned up three more incomplete forms signed by customers (a dividend withdrawal form, an annuity application, and a beneficiary form). New York Life then gave Santangelo a “Letter of Severe Reprimand” in March of 2008. In April of that year, New York Life also placed Santangelo on “Enhanced Supervision,” a status that subjected his files to more frequent audits. During one such audit, in December of 2008, Quarella found two more incomplete forms signed by Santangelo's customers in Santangelo's files (an annuity application and an “agreement to exchange” form).

After that December 2008 audit, Quarella and Santangelo met with James A. Robertson III, a higher-level “Standards Consultant” at New York Life. They discussed Santangelo's repeated violations. Following that meeting, Robertson recommended terminating Santangelo's agent contract.

On April 1, 2009, Santangelo received a letter from New York Life's human resources department that referred to his “upcoming retirement on May 1, 2009.” Confused, Santangelo contacted New York Life's human resources department the next day, April 2. In response, Santangelo received a letter by fax from a Senior Vice President of New York Life stating that Santangelo's agent contract would be terminated effective May 1, 2009. On April 7, Santangelo was denied access to the office space he rented in a New York Life building and disconnected from New York Life's computer network, notwithstanding the termination letter's stated effective date.

Santangelo fought his termination on several fronts. First, in December of 2009, he filed a “Charge of Discrimination” with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”). Santangelo contended that New York Life terminated him because of his age, in violation of both the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 –634, and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, which likewise prohibits age discrimination. In February of 2012, MCAD found no probable cause to support further investigation of Santangelo's charge. Then, in May of 2013, MCAD denied Santangelo's administrative appeal of that finding. Five months later, on October 31, 2013, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) “adopted the findings of” MCAD and closed its file on Santangelo's charge.²

Separately, in March of 2012, Santangelo—represented by counsel—filed suit against New York Life in Massachusetts state court. This lawsuit alleged several common-law claims: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. New York Life removed that suit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on diversity-of-citizenship grounds in July of 2012, and moved for summary judgment in October of 2013.

In January of 2014, while that summary judgment motion was pending, Santangelo—acting pro se—filed a new suit against New York Life in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This suit alleged only age discrimination, under both Massachusetts Chapter 151B and the federal ADEA. After Santangelo's counsel agreed to represent him in that suit as well, the District Court consolidated the two cases. New York Life then moved for summary judgment on all the claims in the two consolidated cases, and the District Court granted that motion. See Santangelo v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., No. 12–11295–NMG, 2014 WL 3896323 (D.Mass. Aug. 7, 2014). Santangelo now appeals from that judgment.

II.

We review the District Court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64, 69 (1st Cir.2014). “We may affirm such an order on any ground revealed by the record.” Houlton Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton, 175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir.1999). In our review, we “consider[ ] the record and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving part[y].” Estate of Hevia v. Portrio Corp., 602 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir.2010). We may decide in favor of the moving party—here, New York Life—“only if the record reveals ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ”

Avery v. Hughes, 661 F.3d 690, 693 (1st Cir.2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ).

III.

We start with Santangelo's age discrimination claims under Massachusetts Chapter 151B and the federal ADEA. Although the statutes are similar, they are not identical. See Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Mgmt., Inc., 671 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir.2012). The District Court granted summary judgment to New York Life on both claims. The District Court concluded that the undisputed facts showed that Santangelo was an independent contractor and not an employee of New York Life, and that each statute only protects “employees.” But even assuming that Santangelo was an employee, his age discrimination claims still fail. And that is because his state law claim is time-barred, and his federal law claim lacks any factual showing of age discrimination.

A.

Massachusetts law required Santangelo to file suit on his state law age discrimination claim “not later than three years after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 9. Santangelo did not file suit on that claim until January of 2014, nearly five years after the termination of his contract with New York Life. Santangelo points out that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against him until he knew or should have known that he had been “harmed by the defendant's conduct.” Silvestris v. Tantasqua Reg'l Sch. Dist., 446 Mass. 756, 847 N.E.2d 328, 336 (2006). And Santangelo contends that he did not have that kind of triggering knowledge until February 14, 2012, when MCAD issued a decision denying his administrative age discrimination charge.

But Santangelo filed a charge of age discrimination in violation of Chapter 151B with MCAD on December 15, 2009, well over three years before he filed suit on his state discrimination claim in 2014. Santangelo does not explain how it could be that he had enough information to file that administrative age discrimination charge with MCAD, but not enough information to trigger the statute of limitations on the Chapter 151B claim. Nor does Santangelo explain why he could not have filed a claim prior to MCAD's February 2012 denial of his age discrimination charge, as he does not identify any information that the denial provided him that he would have needed to make such a filing. Santangelo's Chapter 151B claim is thus time-barred.

B.

That leaves Santangelo's federal ADEA claim.³ We address that claim under “the familiar three-step framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).” Soto–Feliciano v. Villa Cofresí Hotels, Inc., 779 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir.2015). Here, we may assume that Santangelo made the required “prima facie case of employment discrimination” to get past the first step.⁴ Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc.,

585 F.3d 441, 447 (1st Cir.2009). There also is no question that New York Life, at the second step, did what was required of it. New York Life responded to Santangelo's claim with the required “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for terminating Santangelo—his repeated violations of New York Life's rule against maintaining incomplete forms signed by customers. In fact, Santangelo does not dispute that he repeatedly violated that rule. He also does not dispute the documentary evidence that shows New York Life took a series of escalating disciplinary actions in response to those violations.

That brings us to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. At this step, the burden is on Santangelo to show that New York Life's asserted reason for terminating him was a pretext for terminating him because of his age. See Vélez, 585 F.3d at 447–48. To meet that burden, “[i]t is not enough for a plaintiff merely to impugn the veracity of the employer's justification; he must ‘elucidate specific facts which would enable a jury...