Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-30165-MAP
September 28, 2001
Alan J. Black, Alan Black, Attorney at Law, Springfield, MA, Alfred P. Chamberland, Easthampton, MA, For Plaintiff.
Jay M. Presser, Susan G. Fentin, Skoler, Abbott Presser, Springfield, MA, John D. O'Reilly, III, Karl J. Gross, O'Reilly Grosso, Christopher N. Souris, Krakow Souris, Boston, MA, For Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 107)
On May 10, 2001 United States Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman issued his Report and Recommendation regarding the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, recommending that the motion be denied with respect to Counts III through VI but otherwise allowed. Plaintiff filed no objection to this Report and Recommendation, but the defendant has objected to the portion that would permit the plaintiff to pursue claims arising before August 2, 1994.
Upon de novo review, the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED, in toto. It is true that ordinarily a plaintiff must file an administrative charge within six months of the discriminatory conduct. The effect of this rule is that plaintiff's ability to pursue a remedy for discriminatory conduct of the defendant before August 2, 1994 is, at best, highly doubtful.
Nevertheless, the court cannot say at this stage that the plaintiff will not be able to present evidence of these earlier claims on a theory of ?continuing violation." See Sabree v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local No. 33, 921 F.2d 396, 401-402 (1st Cir. 1990); Desrosiers v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 885 F. Supp. 308, 311-312 (D.Mass. 1995). The court may revisit this issue in the context of a motion in limine, or a motion for judgment as a matter of law during trial.
In sum, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 107) is DENIED with respect to Counts III through VI, but otherwise ALLOWED. The clerk will set the case for a status conference.
It is So Ordered.