126 F. Supp. 3d 183
D. Mass.2015Background
- Kevin Grant, a temporary Target store team leader, responded to an alarm at the Haverhill store in the early morning after receiving texts; he consumed two alcoholic drinks earlier and says he was not impaired.
- Grant went to the store, waited with his wife for the alarm technician, and left after an on-duty team leader arrived; he later informed supervisors about availability concerns and that he’d been celebrating.
- Target terminated Grant for "gross misconduct," allegedly based on reports he had been drinking while taking an alarm call; Grant says those reports were false and that Target did not follow its policies before terminating him.
- Grant sued for breach of contract (based on Target’s handbook and offer letter), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, defamation, and originally a public-policy wrongful termination claim (which he agreed to dismiss).
- Target moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim, dismissed the GFFD and misrepresentation claims with prejudice, and dismissed defamation without prejudice while granting leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Target’s employee handbook/offer letter can create an enforceable employment contract (breach of contract) | Handbook/offer letter limited termination-for-cause; Target failed to follow those procedures in firing Grant | Handbook did not form a contract; plaintiff failed to plead necessary formation particulars | Denied dismissal: pleadings plausibly allege implied contract; factual development required |
| Whether Grant states a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Target acted in bad faith by terminating contrary to its policies, causing lost income and emotional harm | Claim fails because GFFD recovery in MA requires pecuniary damages like earned compensation | Allowed dismissal with prejudice: plaintiff concedes no recoverable economic damages; emotional and reputational harms insufficient |
| Whether Grant pleaded fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation | Target’s statements in handbook/offers were false or not intended to be followed, inducing reliance | Policies are promissory/future conditions not actionable absent intent not to perform; complaint lacks facts of contemporaneous falsity or recklessness | Allowed dismissal with prejudice: failure to allege falsity or intent when statements made |
| Whether Grant pleaded defamation | Unnamed Target agents made false statements about his drinking and integrity that harmed reputation and caused termination | Statements (if any) may be privileged or not sufficiently pleaded; intra-corporate communications may not be publications | Dismissed without prejudice; complaint fails Rule 8 particulars but amendment allowed within 21 days to allege who said what to whom and fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court not required to accept legal conclusions as true)
- O’Brien v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 422 Mass. 686 (personnel manual may form employment contract)
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., 443 Mass. 367 (limits on GFFD claims in employment; recoverable damages restricted)
- McCone v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 393 Mass. 231 (privilege and employer’s interest in communications about employee fitness)
- Beebe v. Williams Coll., 430 F. Supp. 2d 18 (denying dismissal where handbook allegations may support breach-of-contract claim)
- Andresen v. Diorio, 349 F.3d 8 (federal pleading standards control even for state-law defamation claims)