Rando v. Leonard
826 F.3d 553
1st Cir.2016Background
- From 2010–2012, 138 bottles of a prescription combination drug (referred to as butalbital) disappeared from a CVS in Concord, MA; earlier losses included hydrocodone growth.
- Surveillance footage on April 21, 2012 captured pharmacy technician Shelly Rando taking one bottle of butalbital and placing it in her pocket.
- Loss-prevention manager Michelle Leonard investigated, interviewed Rando on April 23 with another manager, and presented a written confession for Rando to sign; Rando signed a confession and promissory note admitting theft of 138 bottles and owing CVS money.
- Police were called; they found the single bottle and two empty older bottles at Rando’s home. Rando was terminated, charged with larceny, entered a pretrial diversion program, and the charge was dismissed; ADA later learned a different person confessed to the hydrocodone theft.
- Rando sued Leonard and CVS asserting multiple torts; district court dismissed all claims except intentional interference with contractual relations against Leonard and later granted summary judgment for Leonard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leonard’s conduct constitutes intentional interference with contractual relations | Rando: Leonard coerced a false confession, improperly induced termination of Rando’s employment | Leonard: As a corporate official acting within job scope, she had privilege; plaintiff must prove actual malice; no evidence of spiteful motive | Court: Applied actual malice standard; Rando failed to show actual malice; summary judgment for Leonard |
| Whether Leonard qualifies as a "corporate official" entitling her to elevated standard | Rando: Argues (minimally) corporate-official status should be limited to owners/controller (preserved weakly) | Leonard: She is a regional loss-prevention manager whose actions served corporate purposes, so actual malice applies | Court: Leonard’s status as a corporate official was properly invoked and Rando waived serious challenge; actual malice standard applies |
| Whether Rando produced sufficient evidence of actual malice | Rando: Points to aggressive interrogation, threats, discussion with supervisor before interview, and alleged lies | Leonard: Investigation based on video evidence and shrinkage; conduct aimed at protecting company assets, not spite | Held: Aggressive questioning and threats do not alone prove spiteful, malignant purpose; no evidence of actual malice |
| Whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Rando: Contends coercion and contested facts about the interview create genuine issues | Leonard: Record lacks evidence of improper motive or means sufficient to defeat summary judgment | Held: No genuine issue on malice; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackstone v. Cashman, 860 N.E.2d 7 (Mass. 2007) (elements of tort and heightened actual-malice standard for corporate officials)
- Gram v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 429 N.E.2d 21 (Mass. 1981) (corporate-official privilege analysis)
- Weiler v. PortfolioScope, Inc., 12 N.E.3d 354 (Mass. 2014) (burden rules when defendant invokes corporate-official status)
- Zimmerman v. Direct Fed. Credit Union, 262 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2001) (actual malice requires more than hostility)
- Weber v. Cmty. Teamwork, Inc., 752 N.E.2d 700 (Mass. 2001) (sloppy or unfair practices insufficient to negate privilege)
- Nieves-Romero v. United States, 715 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)