WHAT IS A FORMER EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY TO A WRONGFULLY TERMINATED EMPLOYEE?

March 19th, 2008, 8:48 am

The Superior Court judge correctly concluded that Beriont is properly considered an at-will employee since he failed to produce an employment agreement with a definite period of employment. Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Dev., Inc. 403 Mass. 8, 9 (1988). As a general principle, an employer can terminate the employment of an at-will employee at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 757 (1997). However, an at-will employee can succeed in imposing liability on an employer for terminating his employment in violation of a clearly established public policy. IdThe general rule is that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Folmsbee v. Tech Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., 417 Mass. 388, 394(1994). Liability may be imposed on an employer, however, if an at-will employee is terminated for a reason that violates a clearly established public policy. King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576 (1994). The public policy exception makes redress available to employees who are terminated for asserting a legal right (e.g., filing a workers’ compensation claim), for doing what the law requires (e.g., serving on a jury), or for refusing to disobey the law (e.g., refusing to commit perjury). Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 145, 149-150, 533 (1989).

Employment can be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Gram v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 384 Mass. 659 (1981). Relief may, however, be had in some circumstances where an at-will employee’s termination is contrary to public policy. Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 145 (1989). Redress is available for employees who are terminated for asserting a legally guaranteed right (e.g., filing workers’ compensation claim), for doing what the law requires (e.g., serving on a jury), or for refusing to do that which the law forbids (e.g., committing perjury).” Id. Another public policy basis for imposing liability is where there has been retaliation for the performance of an important public deed. Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805 (1991).

Filed under Employment Discrimination, employee rights · 2 Comments

EMPLOYMENT RETALIATION A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION

March 5th, 2008, 12:24 pm

Pursuant to Massachusetts’s employment law, an employer can be liable under the discrimination statute even if they don’t necessarily discriminate against a protected class of individuals. Rather, an employer can discriminate against a person who is simply attempting to conduct some activity protected by the law. If an adverse action is taken as a result of an employee conducing a protected activity the law recognizes this a form of discrimination call retaliation.Retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in legally protected conduct; she suffered an adverse employment action; and a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse action. To succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove that she reasonably and in good faith believed that his employer engaged in wrongful discrimination, that she acted reasonably in response to this belief, and that the employer’s desire to retaliate against her was a determinative factor in the decision to take an adverse employment action.

For reasons of public policy, an at-will employee may maintain a cause of action and find redress where the termination results from the employee’s assertion of some legally guaranteed right, or for refusing to engage in illegal or harmful conduct. Parker v. Town of North Brookfield, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 235 (2007). Public Policy was violated where employee was discharged in retaliation for good-faith internal complaint about practices violating UL standards bearing directly on public safety. Falcon v. Leger, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 352, 365 (2004).

Redress is available for employees who are terminated for asserting a legally guaranteed right for refusing to do that which the law forbids (e.g., committing perjury). Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 149, 150 (1989). An employee’s good faith internal complaint of employer’s violation of criminal law need not have been reported to public authorities in order to succeed under public policy exception. Shea v. Emmanuel College, 425 Mass. 763 (1997). An at-will employee who “blew the whistle” within his company on wrongdoing is entitled to protection even though before discharge he did not complain to public authorities. Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 560 (1988). An employee could be shielded from the risk of discharge if he or she reasonably, but perhaps erroneously, reports that an employer is violating State and municipal laws and ordinances concerning public safety. Id.

Filed under Employment Discrimination, employee rights · 2 Comments