935 F. Supp. 2d 328
D. Mass.2013Background
- Saltzman worked at the Town’s Senior Center as Assistant Supportive Day Program Coordinator (Oct 2004–Dec 17, 2008).
- Town Administrator Fingías supervised Town personnel; Smith was Director of Elder Affairs; Board of Selectmen Appoints and serves as Personnel Board.
- Town by-law §8G authorizes termination for just cause following warnings and Board review; Board conducts a hearing before termination.
- June 19, 2008 missing-client incident led to a June 24, 2008 written warning; subsequent warnings (July 8, July 18, Aug 28) address alleged misconduct.
- Sept 9, 2008, Sept 19, 2008 directives and investigation culminated in Oct 2008 administrative leave; hearings were held Nov 3–6, 2008; Fingías issued a December 8, 2008 recommendation; Board unanimously terminated Saltzman on Dec 16–17, 2008; Saltzman filed MCAD charge Dec 10, 2009 (dismissed Jul 30, 2010).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process viability (Count I) | Saltzman had a protected property interest and was harmed by lack of transcripts. | No protected property right; process provided met due process standards. | No protected interest; process adequate; transcripts not required. |
| Wrongful termination retaliation (Count II) | Termination violated Title VII/Chapter 151B and public policy due to whistleblowing. | Statutes of limitations bar claims; no protected activity shown; public policy narrow exception not met. | Time-barred under Title VII/151B; no public policy violation shown. |
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith (Count III) | Implied covenant exists even in at-will employment, protecting earned compensation. | No contract; employer has unfettered right to discharge; no breach shown. | No breach; covenant does not override at-will status. |
| Termination without just cause (Count IV) | There was an implied contract prohibiting dismissal without just cause. | Employee at will; just cause shown under Klein standard; Board approval obtained. | Just cause supported; dismissal not violation. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V) | Discrimination and termination were extreme and outrageous. | MTCA and WCA bar claims against public employer/employee; conduct not extreme/outrageous; no notice needed. | MTCA/WCA bar; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148 (1st Cir.2002) (public employee has no protected property right absent statutes/contract)
- Memphis Light, Gas and Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1978) (due process requires notice and opportunity to respond before termination)
- Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103 (1st Cir.2003) (procedural due process standards for public employees)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (Supreme Court, 1985) (pre-termination hearing required for protected interests)
- Wojcik v. Mass. Lottery Comm’n, 300 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.2002) (reasonable expectation of continued employment needed)
- Chmielinski v. Mass. Office of the Comm’r of Probation, 513 F.3d 309 (1st Cir.2008) (bias considerations at hearing; impartiality not strictly required)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (Supreme Court, 1997) (pre-termination notice and hearing balance governmental interests)
- Klein v. Harvard College, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 204 (Mass.App.Ct.1987) (just cause standard for termination in Massachusetts)
- Brasslett v. Cota, 761 F.2d 827 (1st Cir.1985) (due process balance for pre-termination procedures)
- Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229 (Supreme Court, 1976) (timing of discrimination claims and filing period)
- Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court, 1974) (extrajudicial statements and due process context cited)
- Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass. 456 (Mass. Sup. Ct., 1997) (extreme/outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- Marques v. Fitzgerald, 99 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996) (employer conduct in employment disputes generally not extreme/outrageous)