Bradley v. Cruz et al

Filing 48

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN BRADLEY
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY J. CRUZ et al.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-12927-IT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
November 3, 2014
TALWANI, D.J.
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff John Bradley filed the instant action against Defendants alleging (1) violations

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violations of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act; (3) tortious interference
with advantageous contractual/business/employment relations; (4) breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (6)
violations of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Statute. Before the court is Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint (Against Defendant Cruz) and Count IV of the
Complaint in its Entirety [#35]. In this motion, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for
tortious interference with advantageous contractual/business/employment relations (Count III) as
to Defendant Cruz, and Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(Count IV) in its entirety.1

1

On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the factual allegations that Plaintiff pleaded in
his complaint. See Shaner v. Chase Bank USA, 587 F.3d 488, 490 (1st Cir. 2009).

II.

Discussion
A.

Tortious Interference

In an action for tortious interference, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was not a
party to the employment contract, as “[a] party to the contract cannot be held liable for
intentional interference.” Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 744 N.E.2d 622, 632 (Mass. 2001).
Where the defendant and the party to the contract are indistinguishable, a claim for tortious
interference will not be permitted. See id. at 632–33 (“We would do considerable damage . . . if
we permitted a tortious interference claim against an individual decision maker who is
indistinguishable from the corporation itself.”). Here, the statutory framework establishing the
Office of the District Attorney for Plymouth County—Plaintiff’s former employer—provides
that “[e]ach district attorney shall . . . appoint and may, at his pleasure, remove such assistant
district attorneys as are necessary to the functioning of the office of the district attorney.” Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 16. In light of this grant of authority, Defendant Cruz, as District Attorney
for Plymouth County, was indistinguishable from the party to Plaintiff’s employment contract or
relationship. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s tortious interference claim as to Defendant Cruz fails.
B.

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

“[T]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing [is] implicit in all Massachusetts
contracts, including contracts for employment at will.” Harrison, 744 N.E.2d at 629. Under
Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1977), “an employer is accountable
to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee were (sic) terminated in bad
faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed.” Harrison, 744
N.E.2d at 629 (citing Fortune, 364 N.E.2d at 1257–58). This exception to the at-will
employment doctrine “applies to cases in which an ousted employee can show that the

2

termination of his employment deprived him of compensation clearly connected to work already
performed (and, thus, unjustly enriched the employer).” Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328
F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2003). “In short, this exception is designed to preclude an employer from
taking an unfair financial advantage.” Id. (citing McCone v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 471
N.E.2d 47, 50 (Mass. 1984)).
Here, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff’s pension fully vested only upon the
completion of twenty years of service, such vested pension benefit is not closely related to work
already performed, but is contingent upon the rendering of future services. In Harrison, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) confronted a similar issue where the plaintiff
argued that the defendant terminated his employment in bad faith before his stock options could
fully vest. Harrison, 744 N.E.2d at 629. There, where the plaintiff’s stock agreement provided
that an additional 5% of plaintiff’s shares were to vest each quarter that he remained at the
company until all shares were vested, id. at 626, the SJC rejected the plaintiff’s claims, holding
that “[h]is shares vested over time only if he continued to be employed; thus, the unvested shares
are not earned compensation for past services, but compensation contingent on his continued
employment,” id. at 630.
Like the plaintiff in Harrison, Plaintiff’s fully vested pension benefit is contingent on
continued employment. As Plaintiff avers in his complaint, he was terminated “eight months shy
of reaching his twenty-year pension vesting date.” Compl. ¶ 46. Thus, because the fully vested
pension benefit was contingent upon Plaintiff’s rendering of future services, Plaintiff’s claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing must fail.

3

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss Count III of the

complaint against Defendant Cruz and Count IV of the complaint in its entirety is hereby
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 3, 2014

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

4