297 F. Supp. 3d 241
D.D.C.2018Background
- Grol, a 53-year-old former Giant Glass sales rep, was retained by Safelite after Safelite acquired Giant Glass in January 2013; she alleges Safelite agreed to keep certain pay terms (weekly draw, 13% commission on 80% of sales, $700 car allowance) and one year severance.
- Grol signed a retention bonus agreement for $50,000 paid in three installments (2013–2015) and an at-will employment/non-compete agreement (which did not reference commissions or account retention).
- In Oct. 2013 Safelite announced a unified commission plan (11% of 80% of sales); Grol objected. She claims Safelite transferred over one-third of her accounts to substantially younger reps between Dec. 2013 and Jan. 2014.
- In Jan. 2014 Flowers and Drinkwater informed Grol she was terminated; the parties dispute whether she was told she was fired for "cause" (unprofessional behavior) and whether her accounts had already been transferred.
- Grol sued in Bristol Superior Court (Aug. 2016); Safelite removed on diversity grounds. Safelite moved for summary judgment on (1) age discrimination under M.G.L. c.151B §4, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denied summary judgment on all counts, finding genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination under M.G.L. c.151B §4 | Grol says she was over 40, performed satisfactorily, suffered adverse actions (account transfers, reduced commission plan, termination), and younger employees received her accounts — showing discriminatory motive. | Safelite argues it had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: organizational pay changes and termination for inappropriate/unprofessional conduct. | Denied summary judgment — jury could find defendant's reasons were pretextual and motivated by age. |
| Breach of contract — severance and 13% commission | Grol contends Safelite agreed (CEO statement + emails) to severance and a 13% commission, creating enforceable (including implied) contract terms. | Safelite says no enforceable agreement existed for severance or 13% commission; retention-bonus terms were honored; claims may be preempted by c.151B. | Denied summary judgment — factual disputes exist on whether an implied/oral contract formed and whether termination was for cause. |
| Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Grol contends Safelite terminated her to avoid paying remaining retention bonus and otherwise frustrated her contractual benefits. | Safelite denies bad-faith motive. | Denied summary judgment — jury could infer termination partly to avoid bonus, supporting covenant claim. |
| Preemption by M.G.L. c.151B §9 | N/A — relevant to defendant's defense | Safelite argues c.151B provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination, preempting common-law contract claims based on the same grievance. | Counts II and III not preempted here because they are pled as independent contract claims (not merely restatements of the discrimination claim). |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (purpose and standard of summary judgment review)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (definition of material fact and when a genuine dispute exists)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (allocation of burdens on summary judgment)
- Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) (applying McDonnell Douglas under Massachusetts law)
- O'Brien v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 422 Mass. 686 (1996) (when an implied employment contract can arise from employer statements and conduct)
- Klein v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 204 (1987) (definition of "just cause" in employment context)
- RLM Assocs., Inc. v. Carter Mfg. Corp., 356 Mass. 718 (1969) (breach of covenant where termination aimed to avoid commission payment)