Chalifoux v. Proto Labs

1

Joseph Chalifoux v. Proto Labs, LLC

No. 23-cv-23-SE

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

December 28, 2023

Joseph Chalifoux, pro se Counsel of Record

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge

Claiming numerous violations of New Hampshire common law, plaintiff Joseph Chalifoux has sued Proto Labs,^[1]for whom he was employed as a contract worker from September 2018 to December 31, 2019. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) eight of the eleven counts in Mr. Chalifoux's amended complaint (Doc. No. 20), which has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. See LR 72.1.^[2] As explained more fully below, the defendants' motion should be granted.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

To defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must include in his complaint factual allegations sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if it pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Courts may augment those pleaded facts and inferences with information from “documents incorporated by reference into the complaint, matters of public record, and facts susceptible to judicial notice.” Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011).

To test a complaint's sufficiency, the court must first identify and disregard statements that “merely offer ‘legal conclusions couched as fact' or ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.'” Ocasio-Hernandez v Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (alterations omitted)). Second, the court must credit as true all nonconclusory factual allegations and the reasonable inferences drawn from those allegations, and then determine if the claim is plausible. See id. In light of the plaintiffs' pro se status, the court liberally construes his pleadings. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).

Complaint Allegations

Mr Chalifoux worked as an employment recruiter at Proto Labs from September 2018 until December 31, 2019. He was a contract worker hired through Precision Resources Company, Inc. (“PRC”), a staffing agency. Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 20) ¶¶ 3-4, 3637, 46, 66. During his tenure, Mr. Chalifoux raised various concerns regarding Proto Labs' operations and hiring practices.

Soon after he began working at Proto Labs, Mr. Chalifoux became concerned that Proto Labs was engaging in improper hiring practices. Id. ¶¶ 5-9. Specifically, Mr. Chalifoux believed that Proto Labs, an ITAR-compliant^[3] facility, was illegally asking job applicants about their immigration and citizenship status. Contrary to Proto Labs's position, Mr. Chalifoux believed ITAR-registered employers could hire individuals with temporary visas in certain roles and that Proto Labs had an obligation to consider each job and its function to determine which should be subject to ITAR. Id. ¶ 9. Accordingly, within his first day or two of working at Proto Labs, Mr. Chalifoux raised the issue during a meeting with Proto Labs's Human Resource Director, Joelle Stone, and its Human Resources Manager, and Linda Peters. Id. ¶ 10.

Mr. Chalifoux also believed that Proto Labs illegally “screened” employment candidates. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. He alleges that Ms. Peters conducted “backdoor” reference checks by contacting individuals she knew at a candidate's prior place of employment to gather information. Id. ¶ 28. He further alleges that Ms. Peters considered information about candidates that she found through a Google search or publicly reported by news outlets, such as a prior arrest. Id. ¶ 29. Mr. Chalifoux alleges that he discussed these concerns with Ms. Peters. Id. ¶ 30.

Mr. Chalifoux further alleges that he was concerned that Proto Labs did not consistently apply its hiring practices. For example, he alleges that Ms. Peters would allow family members to work together at Proto Labs in some instances and not in others, and that Proto Labs would permit hiring individuals who failed a marijuana drug test in some instances and not others. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32, 60, 69, 71-72. Finally, Mr. Chalifoux asserts that Proto Labs often did not hire the best candidate for a job, but instead hired the youngest candidate in the pool so they could pay them at the lowest end of the salary band. Id. ¶¶ 5759. He believed these inconsistent hiring practices were part of an “ongoing strategy” by Ms. Peters to “install her own ‘people' in the company so that she could “control Nashua.” Id. ¶ 32.

Mr. Chalifoux next claims that Ms. Peters intentionally misreported recruiting numbers to Proto Labs' Minnesota headquarters. Id. ¶¶ 35-38. As an example, he alleges that Ms. Peters was asked to report the number of candidates who had declined an offer of employment, but could not do so accurately because she was making offers to candidates herself rather than having offers go through recruiting. Id. Mr. Chalifoux also claims, without details, that Global Human Resource Director Michele Bryan also provided “false information relative to recruiting” to Proto Labs. Id. ¶ 85.

Mr. Chalifoux further alleges that Ms. Peters and Ms. Stone exhibited a “bully” mentality and “pick[ed] on” Proto Labs employees and contract workers who they perceived to be “weak” and/or “sweet.” Id. ¶¶ 39-41. Their targets included a 71-year old receptionist, whom Ms. Peters told was “too old,” and whose personal information Ms. Peters shared with others. Id. ¶ 51. Mr. Chalifoux also alleges that Ms. Peters criticized another employee for leaving the company ”high and dry” without training a replacement the same day Ms. Peters learned that the employee's son had died. Id. ¶ 86. Also, Ms. Peters and Ms. Stone said “nasty things” to a third employee and lied to her hiring managers about her. Id. ¶ 39. Finally, Mr. Chalifoux alleges that Proto Labs' Director of Manufacturing Operations, Mark Dirsa became upset with an employee for reporting mistakes and “berated” him on the floor and “even chastised him in meetings.” Id. ¶ 80.

In addition to his allegations about her behavior towards other employees, Mr. Chalifoux avers that Ms. Peters generally failed to perform her job satisfactorily. Id. ¶ 62. For example, he asserts that Ms. Peters once failed to cancel badge access for a former employee and once failed to arrange logistics for a new temporary hire. Id. In addition, he claims that Ms. Peters looked at candidate information on Proto Labs' software when that was not in the scope her duties and that she took credit for the work Mr. Chalifoux performed. Id. ¶ 35. In general, Mr. Chalifoux asserts Ms. Peters “didn't like people talking, or even working closely together, if she felt it was a danger to her power at Proto Labs,” which Plaintiff alleges was an effort to “prevent organizing” under the National Labor Relations Act. Id. ¶ 67. He similarly alleges it was Proto Labs' “policy” to “dissuade employees from discussing their salaries” in what he believed to be an effort to “stop organizing/unionizing.” Id. ¶ 68).

Mr. Chalifoux alleges he regularly complained to Ms. Peters and Ms. Stone regarding his concerns. Id. ¶ 59. He also alleges that he reported his concerns to Global Talent Acquisition Manager Kevin Nyenhuis approximately three months into his placement and again, six months later. Id. ¶¶ 43, 53. After Mr. Chalifoux raised his concerns, Ms. Peters began to “target him with increasingly [sic] ferocity.” Id. ¶ 43. Examples of retaliation include:

• Ms. Peters called PRC to report that Mr. Chalifoux did not report to work when he was at a doctor's appointment with his pregnant wife, despite the appointment being on his calendar. Id. ¶ 44.

• After Mr. Chalifoux arrived at work, Ms. Peters and Mr. Dirsa said, “what happened Joe?” after a candidate to whom Mr. Chalifoux had extended a tentative offer reported to work over the weekend without first passing a drug test. Id. ¶ 47. Ms. Peters subsequently reported hearing that he was “adversarial” with the candidate in a follow-up call. Id. ¶ 49.

• Ms. Peters reported that Mr. Chalifoux failed to meet a candidate in the lobby after he arranged for the hiring manager to meet the candidate in his absence, and the hiring manager failed to do so. Id. ¶ 61. After hearing Mr. Chalifoux's explanation, Ms. Peters apologized. Id. ¶ 63.

• Ms. Peters heard from Mr. Dirsa that Mr. Chalifoux was referring job candidates that did not know the job duties and that he had not talked to in advance, and that Mr. Chalifoux was not communicating with candidates regarding their start dates and on-boarding, both of which Mr. Chalifoux asserts is false. Id. ¶¶ 76-79, 83.

• Ms. Bryan tasked someone with finding “other recruiting options” in New Hampshire and Ms. Peters frequently used another agency for recruiting that Mr. Chalifoux did not hold in high regard. Id. ¶¶ 32, 53, 73

• Ms. Peters saw Mr. Chalifoux talking to Brian Creighton regarding Mr. Creighton's concerns about Mr. Dirsa, and asked Mr. Chalifoux what Mr. Creighton had to say. To Mr. Chalifoux, this was an example of Ms. Peters “clock[ing]” what he was doing. Id. ¶ 82. Mr. Chalifoux told Ms. Peters that Mr. Creighton did not like Mr. Dirsa, and Ms. Peters later (unsuccessfully) opposed Mr. Creighton's promotion. Id.

• Plaintiff believes, from others, that Ms. Peters criticized Mr. Chalifoux's appearance and manner of dress,(Id. ¶ 54.), his effectiveness as a recruiter, and his work habits, which caused at least one

...