United States District Court, D. Maine
LEO S. PARASKEVOPOULOS, Plaintiff
CENTRAL MAINE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge
employment discrimination action, plaintiff Leo S.
Paraskevopoulos moves for partial summary judgment as to
defendant Central Maine Medical Center's affirmative
defense that he failed to mitigate his lost wage damages.
See Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 66) at 1. The
defendant has filed a cross-motion for partial summary
judgment on an unrelated theory, see generally ECF
No. 69, which is the subject of a separate recommended
decision. Because the plaintiff has met his burden to show he
made some effort to secure employment after his termination,
and the defendant has failed to meet its burden to show that
comparable jobs were available and that the plaintiff failed
to use reasonable diligence to secure employment, I grant the
Applicable Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Ahmed v. Johnson, 752 F.3d 490,
495 (1st Cir. 2014). “A dispute is genuine if
‘the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable
jury could resolve the point in favor of the non-moving
party.'” Johnson v. Univ. of P.R., 714
F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Thompson v.
Coca-Cola Co., 522 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2008)).
“A fact is material if it has the potential of
determining the outcome of the litigation.”
Id. (quoting Maymi v. P.R. Ports Auth., 515
F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2008)).
party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence
of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
In determining whether this burden is met, the court must
view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences in its favor. Johnson, 714 F.3d at 52.
Once the moving party has made a preliminary showing that no
genuine issue of material fact exists, the nonmovant must
“produce specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form,
to establish the presence of a trialworthy issue.”
Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica Life Assur. Co., 480 F.3d
579, 586 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Clifford v.
Barnhart, 449 F.3d 276, 280 (1st Cir. 2006) (emphasis
omitted)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “As to any essential
factual element of its claim on which the nonmovant would
bear the burden of proof at trial, its failure to come
forward with sufficient evidence to generate a trialworthy
issue warrants summary judgment to the moving party.”
In re Spigel, 260 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2001)
(citation and internal punctuation omitted).
framework is not altered by the presence of cross-motions for
summary judgment.” Cochran v. Quest Software,
Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2003). “[T]he court
must mull each motion separately, drawing inferences against
each movant in turn.” Id. (citation omitted);
see also, e.g., Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry.
Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Cross
motions for summary judgment neither alter the basic Rule 56
standard, nor warrant the grant of summary judgment per
se. Cross motions simply require us to determine whether
either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on
facts that are not disputed. As always, we resolve all
factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in
the light most favorable to the [nonmovant].”)
Local Rule 56
evidence that the court may consider in deciding whether
genuine issues of material fact exist for purposes of summary
judgment is circumscribed by the local rules of this
district. See Loc. R. 56. The moving party must
first file a statement of material facts that it claims are
not in dispute. See Loc. R. 56(b). Each fact must be
set forth in a numbered paragraph and supported by a specific
record citation. See id. The nonmoving party must
then submit a responsive “separate, short, and
concise” statement of material facts in which it must
“admit, deny or qualify the facts by reference to each
numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of
material facts[.]” Loc. R. 56(c). The nonmovant
likewise must support each denial or qualification with an
appropriate record citation. See id. The nonmoving
party may also submit its own additional statement of
material facts that it contends are not in dispute, each
supported by a specific record citation. See id. The
movant then must respond to the nonmoving party's
statement of additional facts, if any, by way of a reply
statement of material facts in which it must “admit,
deny or qualify such additional facts by reference to the
numbered paragraphs” of the nonmovant's statement.
See Loc. R. 56(d). Again, each denial or
qualification must be supported by an appropriate record
citation. See id.
Rule 56 directs that “[f]acts contained in a supporting
or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by
record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed
admitted unless properly controverted.” Loc. R. 56(f).
In addition, “[t]he court may disregard any statement
of fact not supported by a specific citation to record
material properly considered on summary judgment” and
has “no independent duty to search or consider any part
of the record not specifically referenced in the parties'
separate statement of fact.” Id.; see
also, e.g., Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern,
605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2)
(“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of
fact or fails to properly address another party's
assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may .
. . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the
parties' statements of material facts, credited to the
extent that they are either admitted or supported by record
citations in accordance with Local Rule 56, with disputes
resolved in favor of the defendant as the nonmovant, reveal
2011, the plaintiff began a three-year residency program with
the defendant. Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts
with Opposing Statement (“Plaintiff's Consolidated
SMF”), commencing at page 1 of Parties'
Consolidated Statement of Material Facts (Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment) (“Parties'
Consolidated SMF”) (ECF No. 85), ¶ 1. On January
21, 2014, the defendant terminated the plaintiff's
employment in its residency program. Id. ¶ 2.
Following his termination, the plaintiff applied to more than
130 residency programs, participated in the residency match
process twice a year, applied to non-residency jobs, and
explored medical licensure in the United States and Canada.
Id. ¶¶ 5-9; Defendant's Statement of
Additional Facts with Plaintiff's Reply Statement
(“Defendant's Consolidated SMF”), commencing
at page 6 of Parties' Consolidated SMF, ¶¶ 8-9.
However, he was unable to secure employment in another
residency program or as a medical professional.
Plaintiff's Consolidated SMF ¶ 11. Ultimately, the
plaintiff found employment as a research assistant and a
carpenter. Id. ¶¶ 17-18; Defendant's
Consolidated SMF ¶¶ 10-13.