O'Neill v. General Dynamics

Filing 23

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss - So Ordered by District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 4/3/2019. (Urizandi, Nisshy) Modified on 4/3/2019 for clerical error - the court granted the motion to dismiss (Urizandi, Nisshy).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

LEONARD R. O'NEILL, JR.,
Plaintiff,

v.
ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 18-256-JJM-LDA

_________________________ )
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Electric Boat Corporation's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Leonard R. O'Neill, Jr.'s Complaint. ECF No. 21.
Leonard R. O'Neill, Jr. worked at Electric Boat for fifteen years as a shipfitter
and a structural inspector. Electric Boat laid him off in 1997 in good standing. In
2013, Mr. O'Neill applied for work again at Electric Boat and they offered him a job
but rescinded it a few months later after discovery of Mr. O'Neill's pending federal
criminal charge. Mr. O'Neill filed a charge of discrimination against Electric Boat
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex and criminal
status discrimination. During a telephone conference mediation, Mr. O'Neill alleges
that Electric Boat and he reached an oral agreement that if a position was available
after his incarceration, Electric Boat would hire him.

The signed settlement

ag1·eement says nothing about this oral agreement.
After his release, Mr. O'Neill applied for a job at Electric Boat in 2016, but
Electric Boat refused to hire him. As a result, he filed this lawsuit claiming that
Electric Boat breached its promise to him to hire him when he was released and

discriminated against him.

Electric Boat has moved to dismiss the complaint

claiming that it had no contract with Mr. O'Neill to rehire him, and that he alleges
no valid claim for age discrimination.

Cont1·act
Mr. O'Neill's claim that he had a contract with Electric Boat for it to rehire him
after his release does not hold up for at least three reasons:
1. Ivir. O'Neill does not allege a valid enforceable contract because he does

not plead that he gave any consideration (benefit negotiated between
the parties) to Electric Boat in exchange for a promise to rehire him. See

Andoscia v. Town of N. Smithfield, 159 A. 3d 79, 82 (R.I. 2017) (finding
that no contract existed where there was no evidence of consideration in
exchange for a guaranteed term of employment).
2. The written settlement agreement (the contract) does not have the
promise Mr. O'Neill alleges. He claims that it was an oral promise, but
the law does not support an oral promise when there is a complete
written agreement.

See Giorgio v. Nukem, hw., 624 A.2d 896, 899

(Conn. App. 1993) (holding that prior negotiations and agreements may
not add to a fully integrated written agreement) 1; accord Riley v. St.

Gennain,

723

A.2d

1120,

1122

(R.I.

1999)

(holding

that

The Electric Boat Agreement provides that it is to be "interpreted pursuant
to tho laws of Connecticut." ECF No. 14·2 at Ex. C ,111. In any event, Rhode Island
1

authority stands for the same proposition.

2

contemporaneous oral modifications may not add to an integrated
written agreement).
3. The law requires a contract that cannot be completed within one year to
be in writing. Because Electric Boat made the alleged oral promise in
2013, and Mr. O'Neill sought enforcement in 2017, any enforceable
contract would have to have been in writing. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 9·1·
4 ("No action shall be brought ... to charge any person upon any
agreement which is not to be performed within the space of one year
from the making ... unless the promise or agreement upon which the
action shall be brought ... shall be in writing, and signed by the party to
be charged ... ").
For all these reason Mr. O'Neill's claim of breach of contract fails.

Disclimina tion
Mr. O'Neill claims that Electric Boat discriminated against him in violation of
the "discrimination in employment act of 1967."

He is referring to the Age

Discrimination in Unemployment Act of 1967. 29 U.S.C. § 621. The problem with
this claim is that Mr. O'Neill neither alleges his age, nor any plausible facts that
would allow one to conclude that Electric Boat did not hire him because of his age.
CONCLUSION
While it is certainly understandable that Mr. O'Neill is frustrated that his
criminal record is keeping him from getting a job that he wants, unfortunately for

3

him, neither contract law nor existing federal discrimination law supports any claim
for relief.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant Electric Boat Corporation's lVIotion
to Dismiss. ECF No.21.

John J . McConnell, Jr.
United States District Judge
April 3, 2019

4