Day v. Staples, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 06-10647-JLT. |
| Citation | 573 F.Supp.2d 336 |
| Parties | Kevin DAY, Plaintiff, v. STAPLES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Bryan J. Day, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Ariel D. Cudkowicz, Krista G. Pratt, Seyfarth Shaw, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Kevin Day ("Day") alleges that he was wrongfully terminated by Defendant Staples, Inc. ("Staples") after engaging in activities protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Plaintiff advances four claims: (1) violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (2) breach of contract; (3) promissory estoppel and (4) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on all four claims. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the breach of contract, and the wrongful discharge claims. For the following reasons, this court ALLOWS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 41] and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [# 45].
The factual record commences with Plaintiffs application for a position with Defendant. On April 21, 2005, Plaintiff spoke by telephone with corporate recruiter Cheryl Louie ("Louie"), regarding a Reverse Logistics Analyst position.1 Louie's notes from the call show that the position could include up to 70 percent travel.2 During Plaintiffs interview on April 28, 2005, both Louie and Mary-Ellen Julio ("Julio"), Manager of Staples' Reverse Logistics Department, described the job as requiring 70 percent travel.3 The remaining 30% of Plaintiffs work hours would be completed at Staples' office in Framingham, Massachusetts.4
On May 6, 2005, Staples sent Plaintiff an offer letter, which set out his monthly salary and certain requirements.5 Among other things, the letter required that Plaintiff sign an attached Code of Ethics ("Code") as a condition of employment.6 The Code stated in relevant part:
Staples will not tolerate retaliation against anyone who in good faith reports a violation or potential violation of this Code. This means that you will not be disciplined, fired, or discriminated against in any way for voicing ethical or legal concerns or reporting violations so long as you act honestly and in good faith . . . Staples will not discipline, discriminate against, or retaliate against any associate who reports a complaint or concern in good faith.7
The offer letter also stated, "This letter, along with the enclosures, contains our complete offer of employment and in no way changes your status as an at-will employee."8 The enclosures included both an Associate Handbook and the Code of Ethics. The letter said nothing about travel or Plaintiffs primary workplace. After receiving the letter, Plaintiff did not speak to anyone at Staples about travel time associated with the job.9
On May 22, 2005, Plaintiff graduated from University of Massachusetts, Amherst.10 The next day, he arrived at Staples' headquarters and accepted their offer of employment.11 He also signed a document titled "Code of Ethics Acknowledgment."12
The Associate Handbook contained a section entitled "Introductory Period." This explained that the first ninety days of an associate's active employment are considered 13
Further, the Handbook stated in uppercase, underlined print,, 14
During Plaintiff's employment, he lived with his parents in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts.15 The commute from West Yarmouth to the Staples offices in Framingham was approximately 95 miles each way.16 Plaintiff estimates that his commute cost approximately $30.00 per day, or $600.00 per month, for gas.17 He also notes that the value of his vehicle depreciated due to the fact that his commute put 1,000 miles on his car every week.18
As a Reverse Logistics Analyst, Plaintiffs was charged with "[m]onitoring the reports, analyzing the data, and getting to the root cause of why returns either are being picked up and not being processed, why customers aren't receiving their credit."19 He was also tasked with improving the processing of returns.20 Plaintiffs supervisor was Mary-Ellen Julio.21
On June 13, 2005, Plaintiff traveled to California for two weeks of training with human resources personnel, including Wendy Watanabe ("Watanabe") and Judith Gutierrez ("Gutierrez").22 Plaintiff later testified in his deposition that he had a "rocky relationship" with Watanabe and that they "weren't compatible".23 When Plaintiff returned from his training, he told Julio that the entire trip was a waste of time.24
On July 5, 2005, Plaintiff exchanged emails with Julio regarding returns from a courier, SpeeDee Delivery.25 Plaintiff expressed frustration at his failure to get the attention of SpeeDee employees, particularly given the large number of outstanding pick-up orders at this account. He felt as if he had been "brushed off," and given the telephonic equivalent of a blank stare.26 Julio advised Plaintiff that he should not "jump to conclusions," nor "assume to know the whole situation."27 Plaintiff replied, "Sometimes I may come across as rash, but it is all in an effort to get things taken care of, finally ... Perhaps my downfall is that I say things that need to be said and sometimes don't worry about if somebody is hurt or embarrassed, especially if they are in fact to blame."28 Julio responded to "just stick to the facts," and that "it is not us against them, we have to make this work as a TEAM."29
On July 14, 2005, Plaintiff spoke with a dissatisfied customer regarding the return of a scanner.30 Upon learning that the customer was not going to return it, Plaintiff informed him of an inexpensive supplementary machine, sold by a competitor of Staples, that would solve the customer's problem.31 After Julio heard of this consultation, she expressed concern to Plaintiff about recommending a competitor's product, and reminded him that his job was to find out whether the customer's return had been completed.32 Plaintiff stated that he did not believe he did anything wrong and characterized Julio's concerns as "nit-picky."33
Their subsequent conversation lasted approximately one hour and touched on other issues.34 For instance, Plaintiff stated his belief that the department was inappropriately canceling and reissuing returns to manipulate the number of days a return had been outstanding ("aging days").35 He believed that this practice amounted to fraud on Staples shareholders, and was in place so that Julio would look good for her bosses.36 Julio explained that most of the couriers did not have the ability to reprint the paperwork; cancellation and reissuance were the only practicable solution.37 During this conversation, Julio felt that Plaintiff refused to accept her explanations.38
Following the July 14 conversation, Julio called her supervisor, George Zalitis ("Zalitas"), to seek guidance regarding Plaintiff.39 Since Zalitas was not available, Julio spoke to Ann Marie Bourque ("Bourque"), the human resources representative from the Reverse Logistics Department.40 Julio expressed concerns that Plaintiff was refusing to follow instructions and that he had indicated that other members of the team were useless.41 Julio also told Bourque that she had overheard Day read Staples' internal log over the phone to customers, rather than addressing questions to the internal personnel who wrote the logs.42 She was worried about what Plaintiff would say while on the phone with customers.43 Since Day was still in his probationary period, Julio recommended his termination.44 Bourque suggested that Julio document the issues in writing, which she did.45
Following the meeting with Bourque, Julio summarized Plaintiffs performance and attitudinal problems in the "Kevin Day Performance Evaluation."46 The evaluation noted several areas in which Plaintiff had not met expectations: Goals/Teamwork; Representing Staples/Customer Follow up; Assumptions/Lack of Understanding; Professionalism; Insubordination. Specific concerns included Plaintiffs excessive number of "open returns;" his inappropriate conversations with customers; his refusal to follow directions; his various derogations of other employees; other employees' negative feedback about Plaintiff; and his "complete lack of respect in regards to all Staples management and peers."47
On July 15, 2005, Day delivered a letter ("Day Letter") to Doreen Nichols ("Nichols"), Director of Associate Relations and Diversity in Staples' Human Resources Department.48 During their conversation, Nichols advised Plaintiff not to send the letter electronically "since it could get forwarded to the wrong people and make Plaintiff look bad."49 Instead, she offered to pass it along to the appropriate personnel.50 She later forwarded the letter to Ellen Kruse ("Kruse"), Staples' Regional Director of Human Resources, and Nan Stout, Staples' Vice President of Ethics.51
The Day Letter had two sections, entitled "Misrepresentations in Job Description" and "Forced Participation in Fraudulent Activity."52 In the first section, Plaintiff indicated that he had understood that the job would require 70% travel, and that, he had moved in with his parents 95 miles away based on that understanding.53 In the second section, Plaintiff expressed the concern that he was being compelled to commit fraud at the risk of losing his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Day v. Staples, Inc.
...and violated the Staples Code of Ethics. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Staples. Day v. Staples, Inc., 573 F.Supp.2d 336 (D.Mass.2008). We establish the criteria by which such claims are to be evaluated and affirm. I. On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, w......
-
Andaya v. Atlas Air, Inc.
...sufficient knowledge or expertise to conclude the conduct of which he complained violated Section 1514A. See Day v. Staples, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 2d 336, 346-347 (D. Mass. 2008), aff'd, 555 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2009). While plaintiff may have believed the actions violated SOX, the Court finds th......
-
Sequeira v. Kb Home
...him to identify areas where he believed the company was violating securities laws related to shareholder fraud. Cf. Day v. Staples, Inc., 573 F.Supp.2d 336 (D.Mass.2008) (finding that an employee who graduated from college the day before his employment began, and who had no relevant work ex......
-
Demers Bros. Trucking v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
...promissee; (2) the promise induces such reliance; and (3) injustice can be avoided only be enforcing the promise." Day v. Staples, Inc., 573 F.Supp.2d 336, 348 (D.Mass.2008) (citing Hinchey v. NYNEX Corp., 144 F.3d 134, 143 (1st Cir.1998)). A party seeking promissory estoppel must show that......