Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1997
• Citation: 686 N.E.2d 1303,426 Mass. 122
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: , 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1801 Carleton MATTHEWS v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.

Page 1303

686 N.E.2d 1303

426 Mass. 122, 76 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1801

Carleton MATTHEWS v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Plymouth.

Argued Oct. 14, 1997.

Decided Nov. 12, 1997.

Edward J. McCormick, III (Elizabeth Maitland, with him), Norfolk, for plaintiff.

Kay H. Hodge (Andrew L. Matz, with her), Boston, for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, MARSHALL and IRELAND, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

The plaintiff, Carleton Matthews, an African-American male, was terminated from his position as a forklift operator in the shipping department of the defendant's, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.'s, Middleborough manufacturing facility on April 23, 1992, after he admitted to removing product cranberry sauce) from the facility's premises without authorization. The plaintiff grieved his termination to arbitration pursuant to his collective bargaining agreement, and the arbitrator concluded, in a written decision which was not appealed, that the plaintiff had been terminated for just cause. The plaintiff filed complaints with the United States Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) alleging employment discrimination. The OFCCP issued a notice of violation (which it subsequently rescinded), and the MCAD entered a finding of probable cause.

The plaintiff next withdrew his charge before the MCAD and filed a complaint in the Superior Court, alleging that the defendant had terminated him because of his race in violation of G.L. c. 151B, § 4(1). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the judge granted the defendant's motion. Thereafter, the judge denied the plaintiff's motion to strike an affidavit submitted by the defendant's human resources manager. The plaintiff has appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. We affirm the summary judgment for the defendant.

1. The following facts are relevant for the purpose of summary judgment. ¹ The defendant maintains at its Middleborough facility a set of "plant rules" which are divided into "major" and "minor" violations. Included as a major violation, which "may result in discharge or a disciplinary suspension," is "stealing," which "involves the stealing of [c]ompany or other employee's property; stealing [c]ompany time such as sleeping on the job, deliberate time card falsification, punching another's time card, claiming pay not due, etc."

On March 20, 1989, a memorandum was issued in which the plant manager highlighted "stealing," and three other major violations, as transgressions that the company would "not tolerate." ² The memorandum "clarif[ied] that [stealing] also [applies to] individuals who are removing product from production lines without authorization, removing product from any designated production or storage area, bringing product or company property outside of the area in which it normally resides without authorization. It includes product or company property that is in an individual's possession or under [the individual's] control[,] such as in a bag or locker or is removed from the control or domain of the company whether it is on the premises or off." The memorandum further stated: "all major violations as noted in the plant rules including stealing ... will be dealt with in the most extreme manner possible. These plant rules when abused will be looked at as a threat to the well-being of our employees and as such, any individual found to have engaged in any of these activities [will] be terminated." Neither the definition of stealing in the clarifying memorandum, nor in the plant rules, distinguishes between the unauthorized removal of damaged or undamaged product.

On September 20, 1991, the plant manager issued a memorandum entitled "REMOVAL OF COMPANY PROPERTY FROM OCEAN SPRAY COMPOUND." The memorandum stated: "May this note serve to remind all employees that [c]ompany property removed from this facility requires pre-approval by a Manager or Supervisor. Prior approval to remove items may be granted by Managers and Supervisors under circumstances deemed appropriate according to policy and practice at the facility."

The plant rules, and both memoranda, were distributed to employees at the time of their issuance, and are posted on the employee bulletin board next to postings of employee schedules and assignments. At the time of the incident at issue, numerous employees had utilized the authorization form procedure to remove various objects discarded in the facility's dumpsters. The facility also maintains a store where employees may purchase damaged product for three dollars per case.

Despite the rules, deposition testimony indicated that the unauthorized removal of damaged product is commonplace at the facility. Nonetheless, the plant's rules regarding the unauthorized removal of company product are well known and understood among the facility's nearly 400 employees. The defendant has terminated all employees it has discovered taking company product without authority since the clarification memorandum was issued.

The Middleborough facility does not manufacture cranberry sauce, although the facility stores and distributes sauce manufactured at the company's Bordentown, New Jersey facility. The defendant tracks inventory received by the Middleborough facility, and cranberry sauce arrives at the facility in palletized lots for distribution to retailers. The company claims that it maintains records regarding damaged product, although some damaged product is discarded without having been recorded.

The plaintiff began his employment with the defendant on October 12, 1987, and by all accounts, he was a good employee and was qualified for his position. In 1988, he received a written warning and a suspension for a major violation of the company's rules (fighting). The warning stated that "your involvement in any major violation in the future will place your job in jeopardy."

On Friday, April 17, 1992, at approximately noontime, James Hurley, a production supervisor at the facility, observed the plaintiff in the cafeteria of the plant carrying a cardboard case containing eight-ounce cans of cranberry sauce under his left arm. The case appeared to Hurley to be unopened. A dark colored jacket was placed on top of the case. The plaintiff then left the cafeteria.

Shortly thereafter, Barbara Denkner, the human resources manager at the facility, learned that the plaintiff had left the facility with company product. She immediately began an investigation into the incident in the course of which she interviewed the plaintiff and other facility employees. Denkner first spoke with the facility's shipping and employee sales departments to ask whether the plaintiff had purchased or had been given any company product. When she was informed that he had not been authorized to remove product from the facility, Denkner then met with the plaintiff and his supervisor, Mustapha Finni.

On informing him that he was seen taking a case of company product, the plaintiff readily admitted that he had taken the product. He explained that he had removed a damaged cardboard case containing dented cans of cranberry sauce from a dumpster in the lot outside the shipping area of the facility. He stated that he believed that he could take the product without authorization because it had been discarded and was in the dumpster. In response to Denkner's suggestion that he return the product, the plaintiff stated that he had given it to his wife after he left the building.

Following this meeting, Denkner advised Linda Hogan, the acting plant manager, "that an employee had admitted to stealing product." At Hogan's direction, Denkner again met with the plaintiff. James Luckraft, a supervisor at the facility, was present at this meeting. The plaintiff again admitted to taking company product without authorization, and acknowledged that he had received a copy of the plant rules at his orientation and that he was aware of the September 20, 1991, memorandum requiring employees to submit an authorization form, signed by their supervisor, prior to the removal of company property. He maintained that the rules were unclear and that he had misunderstood the authorization policy in that he believed that discarded product found in a dumpster was no longer company product subject to the authorization form requirement.

Denkner did not find the plaintiff's explanation credible because the September 20, 1989 "clarification" memorandum had been distributed to all employees when it was issued and had continued to be posted throughout the facility. In addition, the authorization form policy was posted throughout the plant and was being followed by other employees. At the conclusion of the meeting, Denkner informed the plaintiff that he was suspended pending further investigation of the incident. Later that afternoon after he was advised that return of the product would assist the investigation, the plaintiff returned to Denkner's office with seven uniformly dented, clean, and otherwise unblemished cans of cranberry sauce in a "Shaw's Supermarket" paper bag, which he told Denkner were the cans he had taken from the dumpster.

Following the plaintiff's suspension, Denkner reviewed company records which indicated that the cans the plaintiff returned were included in a shipment of cranberry sauce received by the Middleborough facility on April 16, 1992, and that part of the shipment had been transported to various retailers in palletized quantities on the same day. The records did not indicate that the cans the plaintiff returned had been damaged, reworked or destroyed during the week and one half, prior to, and including, April 17, 1992. Furthermore, because the dumpster from which the plaintiff alleged he retrieved the cans is emptied daily, Denkner concluded that the plaintiff could not have found...