Labor & Employment Law

WHAT IS A FORMER EMPLOYER?S LIABILITY TO A WRONGFULLY TERMINATED EMPLOYEE?

By Michael Goldstein, Esq.

The Superior Court judge correctly concluded that Beriont is properly considered an at-will employee since he failed to produce an employment agreement with a definite period of employment. Jackson v. Action for Boston Community Dev., Inc. 403 Mass. 8, 9 (1988). As a general principle, an employer can terminate the employment of an at-will employee at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 757 (1997). However, an at-will employee can succeed in imposing liability on an employer for terminating his employment in violation of a clearly established public policy. IdThe general rule is that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Folmsbee v. Tech Tool Grinding & Supply, Inc., 417 Mass. 388, 394(1994). Liability may be imposed on an employer, however, if an at-will employee is terminated for a reason that violates a clearly established public policy. King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576 (1994). The public policy exception makes redress available to employees who are terminated for asserting a legal right (e.g., filing a workers’ compensation claim), for doing what the law requires (e.g., serving on a jury), or for refusing to disobey the law (e.g., refusing to commit perjury). Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 145, 149-150, 533 (1989).

Employment can be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. Gram v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 384 Mass. 659 (1981). Relief may, however, be had in some circumstances where an at-will employee?s termination is contrary to public policy. Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass. 145 (1989). Redress is available for employees who are terminated for asserting a legally guaranteed right (e.g., filing workers’ compensation claim), for doing what the law requires (e.g., serving on a jury), or for refusing to do that which the law forbids (e.g., committing perjury).? Id. Another public policy basis for imposing liability is where there has been retaliation for the performance of an important public deed. Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805 (1991).

Full post as published by Massachusetts Employment Law Blog on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).