Harris v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc.

── Harris v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. ── Case No.: 25-1404 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: March 24, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 25-1404 SANDY HARRIS, JR., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Angel Kelley, U.S. District Judge] Before Montecalvo, Kayatta, and Rikelman, Circuit Judges. Alan H. Crede, with whom Robert S. Mantell was on brief, for appellant. Lisa Stephanian Burton, with whom Laurielle M. Howe and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. were on brief, for appellee. March 24, 2026  KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Sandy Harris, Jr., appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. ("National Grid"), on his claims of unlawful retaliation under Massachusetts and federal law. The district court found Harris had failed to show the causal nexus required to sustain his claims. We agree that the clear chronology of events precludes any finding that Harris's protected activity caused his termination. Our reasoning follows. I. National Grid, a utility company, employed Harris as a "Change Analyst," which required him to travel throughout his service territory -- Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and part of New York -- from his base in Massachusetts. In July 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Harris took time off work to travel to Ohio and California to visit family. On July 28, the day after his vacation ended, he informed his boss that, because he was not required to be on-site "due to COVID-19 concerns," he had not returned to Massachusetts and was looking to work from Ohio or California under a company policy permitting employees who would not be appearing on-site to work outside their service areas on a temporary basis. The company did have a policy allowing employees to temporarily work from outside their territories, but only if they had the - 2 - approval of their supervisors.1 Harris had not received that approval. On July 30, National Grid's Director of Human Resources, Judith Dunn, sent Harris an email with a letter stating that he had "violated company policy by not seeking management approval to work out of state at the completion of [his] vacation" and that he would be deemed to have resigned unless he returned to his territory immediately. Dunn also offered Harris the possibility of a severance agreement.2 Harris replied to Dunn's email that same day, stating that he did not intend to resign but was "requesting to work out of state on a temporary basis." He vowed to return to his service territory immediately if his request was not approved. Harris has conceded that it was not until his July 30 reply to Dunn -- sent after he received Dunn's letter telling him he had to return to his territory or be deemed to have resigned -- that he "stated, for the first time, that he had preexisting conditions" placing him at a "higher risk for COVID" and that he was requesting a "reasonable accommodation" allowing 1 The policy also required employees to continue to perform "storm duty assignments," which require employees to work during certain storms, and to consult with a tax advisor before working from out of state. 2 Harris initially expressed interest in a severance agreement but eventually rejected th