public policy exception in Massachusetts

2025This public policy exception to an employer’s right to fire at-will employees without cause must be construed and applied “narrowly,” because “to do otherwise would ‘convert the general rule” that an employee-at-will can be fired at any time and without any reason “into a rule that requires just cause to terminate an at-will employee.’ “King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994), quoting Smith-Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 150 .

2025Similarly, if Dr. Holick were fired because he disagreed with internal BMC practices or procedures, as he also seems to allege, that would not violate public policy either. “[T]he internal administration, policy, functioning, and other matters of an organization cannot be the basis for a public policy exception to the general rule that at-will employees are terminable at any time with or without cause.” King, 418 Mass. at 583 .

2025This public policy exception to an employer’s right to fire at-will employees without cause must be construed and applied “narrowly,” because “to do otherwise would ‘convert the general rule” that an employee-at-will can be fired at any time and without any reason “into a rule that requires just cause to terminate an at-will employee.’ “King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994), quoting Smith-Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 150 .

2025See Smith- Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 151 ("internal matters, including internal policies, could not be the basis of a public policy exception to the at-will rule"); Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555, 558-559 (1988) (no public policy claim where plaintiff told superiors about other employees' false damage and shortage claims against company's warehouse, manufacturers, and suppliers).

2025See Smith- Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 151 ("internal matters, including internal policies, could not be the basis of a public policy exception to the at-will rule"); Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555, 558-559 (1988) (no public policy claim where plaintiff told superiors about other employees' false damage and shortage claims against company's warehouse, manufacturers, and suppliers).

2012Furthermore, the court noted that “Wright’s report was an internal matter, and ‘[ijntemal matters,’ we have previously said, ‘could not be the basis of a public policy exception to the at-will rule’ ” Id., quoting Smith-Pfeffer at 151 , and citing Mello v. Stop-Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555 , 561 n.7 (1988).

2025The public policy exception applies in circumstances where an employee is 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)." Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 472 (1992), quoting Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E.

2012Furthermore, the court noted that “Wright’s report was an internal matter, and ‘[ijntemal matters,’ we have previously said, ‘could not be the basis of a public policy exception to the at-will rule’ ” Id., quoting Smith-Pfeffer at 151 , and citing Mello v. Stop-Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555 , 561 n.7 (1988).

2010Id. at 811 n.3 (stating “whistle-blowing" may fall into the category of protected important public deeds).

2010In Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805 (1991), the SJC expanded the public policy doctrine to protect conduct neither expressly prohibited nor expressly required by statute and recognized an exception to the at-will rule for employees fired for cooperating with law enforcement agencies investigating their employers.

2017In determining whether this narrow public policy exception requires the vacation of an arbitrator’s award, we apply a ‘“stringent, three-part analysis.” Patrolmen’s Association, 443 Mass. at 818 .

2013“We apply a stringent, three-part analysis to establish whether the narrow public policy exception requires us to vacate the arbitrator’s decision.” Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen’s Assn., 443 Mass. 813, 818 (2005).

2005Employees, Council 93, supra at 16. . . . ‘The public policy exception does not address “disfavored conduct, in the abstract, but [only] disfavored conduct which is integral to the performance of employment duties ....” , Id. at 17 ... . ‘Finally, we require[] a showing that the arbitrator’s award reinstating the employee violates public policy to such an extent that the employee’s conduct would have required dismissal.’ Bureau of Special Investigations v. Coalition of Pub.

2005Employees, Council 93, supra at 16. . . . ‘The public policy exception does not address “disfavored conduct, in the abstract, but [only] disfavored conduct which is integral to the performance of employment duties ....” , Id. at 17 ... . ‘Finally, we require[] a showing that the arbitrator’s award reinstating the employee violates public policy to such an extent that the employee’s conduct would have required dismissal.’ Bureau of Special Investigations v. Coalition of Pub.

2005Melley v. Gillett Co . 19 Mass.App.Ct. 511, 512-13 ; See, e.g., Cormier v. Littlefield, 13 F.Sup.2d 127, 129 (D.Mass. 1998); Mayo v. Dalbar, Inc., 14 Mass. L.

2004Melley v. Gillette Corp., 19 Mass.App.Ct. 511, 512-13 (1985), upon which the defendants rely, holds only that a private remedy under the public policy exception to the traditional rule governing at-will employment contracts will not be created if there is a statutory remedial framework to redress the plaintiffs grievances.

2025For a contract to violate public policy, "[t]he grounds for a public policy exception must be clear in the acts of the Legislature or the decisions of this court." Trustees of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust v. Cambridge Point, LLC, 478 Mass. 697 , 705 (2018), quoting Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 683 (2007).

2023"The grounds for a public policy exception must be clear in the acts of the Legislature or the decisions of this court." Trustees of the Cambridge Point Condominium Trust v. Cambridge Point, LLC, 478 Mass. 697 , 705 (2018), quoting Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 683 (2007). "'Public policy' in this context refers to a court's conviction, grounded in legislation and precedent, that denying enforcement of a contractual term is necessary to protect some aspect of the public welfare." Rawan v. Continental Cas.

2014See Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Co., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 243, 245 (1994) (“Although the term ‘public policy’ is amorphous, the public policy exception to the at-will employment rule has been made available to employees discharged for performing important public deeds”) (internal citation omitted).

2002See Shea, 425 Mass. at 763 (finding that a plaintiffs threat to blow the whistle on a violation of criminal law falls within the public policy exception); Cf. Mello, 402 Mass. at 560 (finding that the plaintiffs threat to blow the whistle on his superiors who made false damage and shortage claims to store managers did not fall within the public policy exception because those claims concerned internal matters); Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Company, Inc., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 243, 246 (1994) (finding that the employee’s termination for her complaints that her superior breached warranties in violation o

2012Lynn, 435 Mass. at 62-63 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original).

2010We are bound by this determination and, therefore, “need not parse the application of the public policy exception to such a scenario, because it is a factual scenario that the arbitrator expressly determined had not been proved.” Lynn v. Thompson, 435 Mass. 54, 65 (2001) (where city terminated police officer for alleged use of excessive force and arbitrator found that allegation unproved, court upheld award ordering reinstatement, as it was bound by arbitrator’s finding).

2008Merola v. Exergen Corp., 423 Mass. 461, 464 (1996), citing King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 581-82 (1994).

2008Merola v. Exergen Corp., 423 Mass. 461, 464 (1996), citing King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 581-82 (1994).

2024Second, the public policy exception requires that the Grievant's offending conduct have been more than merely " disfavored in the abstract." It must have instead been "integral to the -5- performance of [his] employment duties." Bureau of Special Investigations, 430 Mass. at 605 .

2018Bureau of Special Investigations , 430 Mass. at 604 , 722 N.E.2d 441 . "[W]e apply a stringent, three-part analysis" to determine whether the public policy exception applies to the otherwise mandated enforcement of an arbitration award (quotation and citation omitted).

2002See Shea, 425 Mass. at 763 (finding that a plaintiffs threat to blow the whistle on a violation of criminal law falls within the public policy exception); Cf. Mello, 402 Mass. at 560 (finding that the plaintiffs threat to blow the whistle on his superiors who made false damage and shortage claims to store managers did not fall within the public policy exception because those claims concerned internal matters); Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Company, Inc., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 243, 246 (1994) (finding that the employee’s termination for her complaints that her superior breached warranties in violation o

2002The defendants argue that the exception must be viewed so narrowly to include only those instances where a plaintiff can point to a violation of a “well-established public policy” as set forth in Shea v. Emmanual College, 425 Mass. 761, 762 (1997).

2000Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Assn., Intl., 861 F.2d 665, 671 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871 (1989).

1995Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 861 F.2d 665, 671 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871 (1989).

1993While perhaps “the Achilles heel of the [public policy exception] lies in the definition of public policy,” see id. at 478 (Liacos, C.J. dissenting), quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 (1981), the SJC has specified three areas where a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule is appropriate: “[W]here employees are . . . [terminated] for doing what the law requires (citation omitted), for performing important public deeds such as cooperating with law enforcement officials (citation omitted), and for refusing to commit unlawful acts (citation omitte

1992See, e.g., Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., Al Cal. 3d 654, 665 (1988); Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill. 2d 124, 128 (1981); Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 71 (1980).

2001“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section to the contrary, consent shall not be available as a defense to any prosecution under this action.” For an enumeration of cases where the public policy exception made redress available to an at-will terminated employee and a list of cases where termination did not warrant recovery, see Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. at 757-758 .

1999Subject to a public policy exception, the general rule is that an at-will employee may be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all. id.

2003Melley v. Gillette Corp., 19 Mass.App.Ct, 511, 512 (1985), aff'd, 397 Mass. 1004 (1986).

2000See Id.

2001However, even if count VIII in the plaintiffs complaint alleged wrongful termination, from the line of cases beginning with Fortune v. National Cash Register Company, 373 Mass. 96 (1977), there has evolved another exception, that being the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in every employment agreement, at-will or otherwise.

1996The defendants thoroughly argued on appeal their position as to the first part of count I, the public policy exception, but they did not argue the second part, the breach of the covenant described in Fortune [v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 101 (1977)].

2026See Patrolmen's Ass'n, 443 Mass. at 823 (vacating arbitration award reinstating police officer who committed perjury and filed false police reports); School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223, 224, 237 (2001) (Ireland, J., concurring) (vacating arbitration order reinstating school teacher who used physical force against student); Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 382 (2009) (vacating reinstatement of police officer who committed assault by means of dangerous weapon).

2026See Patrolmen's Ass'n, 443 Mass. at 823 (vacating arbitration award reinstating police officer who committed perjury and filed false police reports); School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223, 224, 237 (2001) (Ireland, J., concurring) (vacating arbitration order reinstating school teacher who used physical force against student); Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 382 (2009) (vacating reinstatement of police officer who committed assault by means of dangerous weapon).

2024"We apply a stringent, three-part analysis to determine whether the public policy exception applies to the otherwise mandated enforcement of an arbitration award." Pittsfield, 480 Mass. at 639 (citation and quotation omitted).

2010See Vong Oung, 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 708 .

2007Compare Kolodziej v. Smith, 412 Mass. 215 (1992) (at-will employee discharged for failing to attend mandatory motivational seminar with religious overtones was not protected by Federal and State guarantees of religious freedom; G.