Psy-Ed Corporation v. KLEIN HIRSCH
459 Mass. 697
| Mass. | 2011

Background

  • Cross appeals from judgments in two superior court actions between Psy-Ed Corporation (and Valenzano) and Klein & Schive, involving retaliation, abuse of process, and tortious interference claims.
  • Psy-Ed published Exceptional Parent; financial restructuring in 1990s leading to Klein’s role as editor and Valenzano’s leadership changes.
  • Schive, a deaf Psy-Ed employee, claimed discrimination and sought accommodations; she filed a Massachusetts MCAD complaint in 1997.
  • Klein signed an affidavit supporting Psy-Ed in Schive’s MCAD matter; later a second Klein affidavit referenced dissatisfaction with the MCAD response.
  • A March 27, 1998 settlement among Klein, Psy-Ed, and Valenzano included a settlement, release of claims, and a promissory note to Klein installment payments.
  • In late 1999, after new affidavits, the Psy-Ed board halted further note payments and pursued litigation against Klein and Schive; MCAD issued a probable cause finding in Schive’s favor.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether § 4(4) and 4(4A) retaliation protections extend to former employees. Klein/Schive argue protections apply only to current employees. Psy-Ed/Valenzano argue protections extend to post-employment conduct. Sections protect non-employees; post-employment retaliation covered.
Whether Schive’s 1999 suit was a baseless ‘sham’ action infringing retaliation law. Suit pursued to vindicate MCAD claims; retaliation not shown. Rapid sequence of events and intent to retaliate support causation. Schive's action found causally connected to protected MCAD activity; not merely baseless.
Whether Klein’s claim of retaliation against Psy-Ed/Valenzano was properly adjudicated given termination of employment. Retaliation may occur after termination; should not be barred by timing. Earlier summary judgment relied on termination; obstruction resolved on remand. Klein’s retaliation claim remanded; not precluded by post-employment timing.
Whether the trial court erred in applying abuse of process standards to Schive and Klein. Ulterior purpose to obtain collateral advantage supported by evidence. Altered legal standard misapplied; need proper ‘ulterior purpose’ with collateral advantage. Abuse of process rulings vacated; remand for proper standard; Klein’s claim likewise remanded.
Whether Klein adequately alleged tortious interference with contract against Valenzano and others. Valenzano interfered with Klein’s settlement-related contract. A party cannot tortiously interfere with his own contract; impact on a third party uncertain. Valenzano's liability vacated; need further proceedings; board members' liability also remanded.

Key Cases Cited

  • Sahli v. Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc., 437 Mass. 696 (Mass. 2002) (limits on right to petition; baseless vs reasonably based litigation in retaliation claims)
  • Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 432 Mass. 107 (Mass. 2000) (retaliation may be proved by belief in wrongful discrimination; causation analyzed)
  • Mole v. University of Mass., 442 Mass. 582 (Mass. 2004) (causation in retaliation and timing as inference of retaliation)
  • Ladd v. Polidoro, 424 Mass. 196 (Mass. 1997) (ulterior purpose not mere vexation; must seek collateral advantage)
  • Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 387 Mass. 589 (Mass. 1982) (malice and ulterior purpose distinguished in abuse of process)
  • Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465 (Mass. 2001) (party to contract generally cannot tortiously interfere with own contract; analysis of malice)
  • Shafir v. Steele, 431 Mass. 365 (Mass. 2000) ( Restatement guidance on interference with contract when defendant is a party)
  • G.S. Enters., Inc. v. Falmouth Marine, Inc., 410 Mass. 262 (Mass. 1991) (elements of tortious interference with contract; actual malice standard discussed)
  • Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (protective activity and timing in retaliation context; employees and rights to sue)
  • Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (Mass. 2010) (ulterior purpose as collateral advantage; abuse of process framework)
  • Sahli v. Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc., 437 Mass. 696 (Mass. 2002) (reiterated as a primary authority on retaliation and protected conduct)
  • Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (broad protection scope for retaliation; not limited to current employees)
Read the full case