Today, he describes himself as a “multi-family real estate investor” who 10 months ago shared on social media that he was under contract for a five-unit commercial residential property in Clearwater, Fla.
Until February 2022, he was a videographer for Chronicle, the news feature program that has been a hallmark of Hearst Television flagship WCVB-5 in Boston for more than 40 years.
George Rodrique was terminated for not following a corporate mandate that he be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus. In response, Rodrique sued Hearst and the Massachusetts Director of Unemployment Assistance for religious discrimination and for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act for the TV station owner’s dismissal and the DUA’s denial of unemployment benefits.
In June, Hearst earned a partial win in a Massachusetts U.S. District Court, as it dismissed many, but not all of the claims, brought forth by Rodrique. Now, the former Chronicle videographer has gotten part of his lawsuit revived.
With a $4 million demand at stake, Judge Richard G. Stearns on Thursday (8/3) granted a motion for reconsideration filed by Rodrique.
Stearns made the ruling based on one finding presented to the court by Rodrique’s counsel, sole practitioner Ilya Feoktistov. In the judge’s view, an “inadvertent sua sponte dismissal of Mr. Rodrique’s Count IV” against Hearst under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), for failure to exhaust “the requisite administrative process,” is a valid claim presented by Feoktistov.
In plain English, Hearst did not specifically address Rodrique’s discrimination claims in its motion to dismiss the case.
On July 26, via an electronic order, Stearns signaled his support of Rodrique’s request.
“Although plaintiff styles his motion as a request for reconsideration, neither he nor Hearst substantively address the standard governing reconsideration in their briefing,” the judge ruled. “This standard cannot be ignored.”
He based his decision on the fact that the First Circuit has cautioned that the remedy of reconsideration is to be used “sparingly,” citing the 2006 case Palmer v. Champion Mortgage. He also quotes the 1995 edition of Federal Practice and Procedure in declaring that Rodrique’s request is not merely a vehicle for a party to “advance a new argument that could (and should) have been presented prior to the district court’s original ruling.” That standard was established in Cochran v. Quest Software, a 2003 First Circuit decision.
With that conclusion, Stearns asked both Hearst and Rodrique to submit a short additional briefing addressing why the remedy of reconsideration is or is not appropriate, with an August 2 deadline given.
Importantly, Stearns’ order granting the motion for reconsideration will allow the motion to reconsider on the narrow grounds that, although Hearst referenced “all” claims in the header of the relevant section of their brief, the substantive argument does not address the MCRA or Count IV.
“In reinstating the claim, the court does not express any opinions as to its merits,” Stearns said. This means Hearst remains free to challenge the claim in a summary judgment motion (for example, on the grounds that Hearst Communications allegedly was not Rodrique’s employer). “The court merely decides that any challenge to the merits of the claim was not properly raised in the motion to dismiss briefing,” Stearns said.
Meanwhile, Stearns on Friday granted a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery submitted by Feoktistov, which pushes the date to September 13.
