Treadwell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-3589-C.
• Parties: Arthur TREADWELL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

666 F. Supp. 278

Arthur TREADWELL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 85-3589-C.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 25, 1987.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Andrew D. Nebenzahl, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

William F. Joy, Robert P. Joy, Laurence J. Donoghue, Morgan, Brown & Joy, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

CAFFREY, Senior District Judge.

This is a civil action brought by plaintiff Arthur Treadwell against defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company ("Hancock") and two of its supervisory employees, defendants Michael Gangemi and Paul Hahesy. Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts various causes of action based upon Hancock's discharge of plaintiff after 28 years of employment with Hancock. Count One is for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count Two is for age discrimination in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4 and M.G.L. c. 149, § 24A. In Count Three plaintiff alleges that defendant terminated him in order to deny him retirement benefits, in violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., and in violation of Massachusetts public policy. Count Four is a claim for deceit. Plaintiff asserts a claim of promissory estoppel in Count Five. Count Six is for breach of contract. Counts Seven and Eight assert claims sounding in tort for negligent breach of a duty to the plaintiff. Count Nine is for tortious interference with advantageous business relations, and, finally, Count Ten is for age discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. The matter is now before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on all ten counts of the amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56.

Briefly, the facts of the dispute, as alleged, are as follows. Plaintiff was hired for employment by Hancock in May 1956. Hancock provided plaintiff with an employee manual, which set forth procedures for employee evaluation, discipline, and termination of employment. In 1973, plaintiff's position was terminated, and he was transferred to the position of Analyst I in the Records Administration Division of the Corporate Consulting Department, under the supervision of defendant Michael Gangemi. Shortly after his transfer to Analyst I, plaintiff was told by Gangemi that plaintiff was not suited for the position. Gangemi represented to plaintiff that a job retraining program would be established to assist him in fulfilling his job responsibilities.

From 1973 to 1979 plaintiff's job performance was consistently rated as "Good." In 1980 he was evaluated as "Acceptable — the employee's performance meets minimal job requirements." In 1981 plaintiff's job functions were narrowed to just two aspects of the Analyst I position. Plaintiff received a "Needs Improvement" performance evaluation in 1983. The 1983 evaluation also represented that plaintiff would be provided with retraining, and then would be required to resume all functions of the Analyst I position. In January 1984, Hancock placed plaintiff on a six month probation. On or about March 3, 1984, plaintiff received a schedule for his retraining; the schedule indicated that the retraining period concluded that same day. Finally, on April 20, 1984, defendants Gangemi and Hahesy presented plaintiff with the opportunity to select an early retirement program, labeled Special Opportunity Assistance Program ("S.O.A.P."), recently developed by Hancock. Plaintiff alleges that Gangemi and Hahesy told him that his only alternative to acceptance of S.O.A.P. was immediate termination. Plaintiff accepted the S.O.A.P. severance arrangement and retired.

I. Claim of Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

In Count One plaintiff claims that Hancock's termination of his employment breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Massachusetts recognizes this implied covenant in the at-will employment context. Siles v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 13 Mass.App. 354, 358, 433 N.E.2d 103, rev. denied, 386 Mass. 1103, 440 N.E.2d 1176 (1982). This implied covenant supports an action for "bad faith" or "wrongful" termination of employment. See Siles 13 Mass.App. at 354, 358, 433 N.E.2d 103. An at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if the discharge is contrary to public policy. DeRose v. Putnam Management Company, 398 Mass. 205, 210, 496 N.E.2d 428 (1986). Plaintiff argues that defendant's firing of him breached a promise enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and that such conduct constitutes a violation of public policy.

Plaintiff's definition of the term "public policy" is too broad. Since a promise enforceable by virtue of reliance "is a `contract' and is enforceable pursuant to a `traditional contract theory,'" Loranger Construction Co. v. E.F. Hauserman, Co., 376 Mass. 757, 761, 384 N.E.2d 176 (1978), plaintiff's theory would turn a breach of contract into a violation of public policy. Certainly the term "public policy" as used in the wrongful discharge context will not stretch that far. Cf. DeRose, 398 Mass. 205, 496 N.E.2d 428 (affirming jury verdict that employer wrongfully discharged employee in violation of public policy for failing to implicate another employee at a criminal trial as directed by employer); Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 344 P.2d 25 (1959) (employer's termination of an employee because of the employee's refusal to commit perjury violated public policy). See also Note, Protecting Employees At Will Against Wrongful Discharge: The Public Policy Exception, 96 Harv.L.Rev. 1931, 1936-37 (1983) ("courts have found the public policy violation to apply to discharges including three broad categories of motives : 1. refusing to commit an unlawful act ... 2. performing an important public obligation ... 3. exercising a statutory right or privilege.").

In addition, even where an employer's termination of an employee violates public policy, there is no cause of action for wrongful discharge if a remedy is already available. Melley v. Gillette Corporation, 19 Mass.App. 511, 475 N.E.2d 1227 (1985), aff'd, 397 Mass. 1004, 491 N.E.2d 252 (1986). In Melley the Appeals Court stated that

"the rationale for implying a private remedy under the `public policy exception' to the traditional rule governing at-will employment contracts is that, unless a remedy is recognized, there is no way to vindicate such public policy."

Id. at 511-512, 475 N.E.2d 1227. Applying that principle, the court in Melley ruled that an employee claiming wrongful termination of employment on grounds of age discrimination has no cause of action separate from the already established comprehensive statutory remedial scheme for age discrimination. Id. at 512, 513, 475 N.E.2d 1227. In the present case plaintiff argues that the breach of a promise enforceable by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is the violation of public policy. As stated above, Massachusetts recognizes the enforceability of such promises as ordinary contracts. Plaintiff thus has an already established remedy, i.e. a cause of action for breach of contract. No new cause of action based on a theory of wrongful discharge need be created to remedy the alleged wrong. Consequently defendants' motion to dismiss Count One for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted should be allowed.

II. Claim for Age Discrimination in Violation of State Law

In Count Two, plaintiff alleges that he was terminated because of his age, in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4; M.G.L. c. 149, § 24A,¹ and the public policy of the Commonwealth. As to the public policy claims in Count Two, plaintiff argues that termination on the basis of age supports an action for wrongful discharge. The Supreme Judicial Court, however, recently affirmed an Appeals Court ruling that there is no cause of action for wrongful termination on the grounds of age discrimination apart from the procedures provided by M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4. Melley v. Gillette Corporation, 19 Mass.App. 511, 513, 475 N.E.2d 1227 (1985), aff'd, 397 Mass. 1004, 491 N.E.2d 252 (1986). Consequently, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should be allowed as to the common law wrongful discharge claim in Count Two.

Defendants further argue that plaintiff's claim of age discrimination in employment in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B, § 4, must be dismissed for failure to file a timely charge of age discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"). Plaintiff has not refuted this argument in its opposition memorandum. According to the language of c. 151B, § 5, "Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within six months after the alleged act of discrimination." Thus, failure to file a timely charge of discrimination bars a party from bringing a c. 151B, § 5 discrimination action in court. See also Ackerson v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 624 F.Supp. 1148, 1150 (D.Mass.1986); Rock v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 205-07, 424 N.E.2d 244 (1981). In paragraph 16 of the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on April 20, 1984 defendants told him that he must either accept Hancock's S.O.A.P. severance arrangement or be immediately terminated. Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 17 that as a result of this forced choice, he was coerced into accepting the S.O.A.P. According to the copy of plaintiff's charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which is attached to the affidavit of Robert P. Morris in support of defendants' motion, plaintiff was in fact terminated from his employment on April 20, 1984. Plaintiff's EEOC charge alleging age discrimination in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B was filed on...