854 F. Supp. 2d 149
D. Mass.2012Background
- Woodward, a long-tenured Emulex account manager, was employed April 2000 under an at-will acknowledgment; Emulex reorganized its EMC sales team years later and ultimately terminated Woodward on July 3, 2009 at age 55 as part of a reduction in force; EMC revenues declined during 2007–2009 and Woodward’s duties were reassigned to younger staff; Emulex changed the mileage-reimbursement policy in 2009, reducing reimbursement for those with a monthly auto allowance, which Woodward contends affected him; MCAD dismissed Woodward’s age-discrimination claim in 2010, prompting this federal action removed on diversity grounds; plaintiff alleges age discrimination, breach of express contract (reimbursement and commissions accounting), breach of implied contract, and tortious interference; the court grants summary judgment for Emulex on all claims after applying the Massachusetts Chapter 151B framework and evaluating pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woodward proves a prima facie age-discrimination case under Chapter 151B. | Woodward asserts he is over 40, was performing adequately, was terminated, and younger employees were retained. | Emulex's decision was a non-discriminatory reduction in force consistent with business judgment. | No; no credible pretext evidence; RIF rationale suffices; summary judgment for Emulex on discrimination. |
| Whether Emulex breached express contract by failing to reimburse expenses and provide commission accounting. | Emulex agreed to reimburse and provide full commission accounting. | Emulex paid all eligible commissions and reimbursed expenses under policy; policy changes were communicated. | No; no breach; policy changes and paid reimbursements show compliance. |
| Whether Woodward has a viable claim for breach of implied contract arising from assurances of continued employment. | Gill’s assurances created an implied contract beyond at-will status. | Acknowledgment and at-will language negate implied contract; statements were aspirational, not definite offers. | No; at-will with conditional statements cannot create enforceable implied contract. |
| Whether Hoogenboom tortiously interfered with Woodward’s advantageous business relationships. | Hoogenboom actively pressured Woodward’s termination due to age, interfering with relationships. | No evidence of malice or improper interference; only a neutral instruction to energize the EMC team. | No; insufficient evidence of actual malice or improper interference; summary judgment for defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (framework for discrimination burden shifting in Massachusetts law)
- Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 2005) (rejected simple age-disparity as per fourth element; need raise inference of discrimination)
- Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 2001) (causation standard for discriminatory animus contribution to action)
- Abramian v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 432 Mass. 107 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 2000) (describes burden shifting at third stage of prima facie framework)
- Smith v. F.W. Morse & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 1996) (employer may terminate for nondiscriminatory reasons under business judgment rule)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (limits on second-guessing employers' nondiscriminatory business decisions)
- Webber v. Intl. Paper Co., 417 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2005) (nondiscriminatory reasons need not be wise, but not discriminatory)
- Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2007) (pretext evidence requires probative evidence on discrimination elements)
- Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 1995) (summary judgment proper when evidence of intent is lacking)