Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Massachusetts Employment Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: Massachusetts Employment Law BlogCan you be terminated just prior to vesting in your benefits?
By Michael Goldstein, Esq.
The Court held that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is violated when an employer terminates an at-will employee without good cause and deprives the employee of a clearly identifiable future compensation reflective of the employee?s past services. Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 104-05 (1977).Whether particular benefits relate to past or future services is a matter of law to be decided by the court where the contract terms agreed to by the parties are undisputed. Sargent v. Tenaska, Inc., 108 F.3d 5, 8 (1997). A cause of action might exist for an employee at will who was terminated in bad faith one month before his partial interest in a five year project was scheduled to vest. Id. Where benefits such as shares of stock are subject to a vesting schedule over time and vest only if the employee continues to be employed, such benefits are contingent on the employee providing future services for the employer and thus are generally not compensation for past services. Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. at 473-474 (2001).
The Supreme Judicial Court has recognized an exception to the general rule allowing for termination of an at-will employee with or without cause, which states that an employer may not terminate an at-will employee ?if the termination violates a clearly established public policy.? King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994); Wright v. Shriner’s Hosp. for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 472 (1992). The determination of whether a ?public policy? is implicated in the discharge of an employee is a question of law for the court. ?It is not for the jury to define the public policy. The judge must determine whether, on the evidence, there is a basis for finding that a well-defined, important public policy has been violated.? Mello v. Stop & Shop. Co., 402 Mass. 555, 561(1988).
Full post as published by Massachusetts Employment Law Blog on April 02, 2008 (boomark / email).
Military Veterans Benefits
How to obtain full range of benefits for veterans and dependnets
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 3
Other Benefits
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 4
Where to get help
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 2
Training, Healthcare, and Death Benefits
ERISA Pension Benefits after Termination
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Pre-paid Leagal Services
What are Prepaid Legal Benefit Plans
Social Security Class Action Launched
to Reinstate Wrongfully Terminated Payments
Social Security Loses Class Action, Will Pay $500 Million in Benefits
Social Security Loses Class Action, Will Pay $500 Million in Benefits
Retired Steel Workers Win Pension Benefits Class Action for $51 Million
Retired Steel Workers Win Pension Benefits Class Action for $51 Million
Spa Factor
Aromatherapy Fountain & Bath Benefits Kits Recalled
Georgette Klinger Spa
alleging unpaid wages and benefits and violation of the WARN Act.
The Dannon Company, Inc.
allegedly falsely claimed Activia and DanActive probiotic yogurt products had scientifically proven health benefits.

Discontinuing Section 207-c benefits
Alleghany County, PA Considering Community Benefits Agreement Local Laws
Trust Provision interpreting distribution to someone who dies before distribution is complete.









