United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1106
DAVID MEUSER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges,
and Domínguez,* District Judge.
Dan V. Bair, II with whom Lisa Brodeur-McGan and Bordeur-
McGan, P.C., were on brief for appellant.
Kathy Laughter Laizure was on brief for appellees.
May 4, 2009
*
Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
Domínguez, District Judge. This appeal arises from a
complaint filed by David Meuser ("Meuser/Appellant") against
Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") on February 9, 2006, in the
Hampshire Superior Court, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
alleging violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (“MCRA”),
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 52C, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and discharge in violation of public policy, Counts I,
II, and III, respectively. On March 17, 2006, FedEx filed a notice
of removal in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on the basis of diversity and federal question
jurisdiction.
FedEx filed a motion for summary judgment, on all counts, on
September 4, 2007, contending that the facts, even when viewed in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, could not lead a
reasonable jury to conclude that any action was taken against
Plaintiff via "threats, intimidation or coercion" as required by
the MCRA, and that Plaintiff was not constructively discharged.
Meuser filed his opposition to FedEx's motion for summary judgment
on October 1, 2007. On December 14, 2007, District Court Judge
Michael A. Ponsor, entered a memorandum and order granting summary
judgment in favor of FedEx, on Counts I (violation of the MCRA) and
III (wrongful termination in violation of public policy).1 Meuser
1
On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion agreeing to
dismiss Count II (intentional infliction of emotional distress) of
the Complaint, signed by both parties. See Civil Action No. 06CA-
- 2 -
timely filed his notice of appeal on January 14, 2008.
I. BACKGROUND
The events underlying this case commenced on October 10, 2002,
when Appellant, a FedEx courier since April 1992, noticed fumes in
his delivery truck. Thereafter, Appellant made a visit to the
hospital and was out of work for three days as a result of his
exposure to the fumes. Consequently, on October 11, 2002, Meuser
filed a worker’s compensation claim, and on October 14, 2002, he
filed a Safety First Report with FedEx. Around that same time
Meuser, because he was concerned about his exposure and the nature
of the fumes, asked his supervisors for the Material Safety Data
Sheets (“MSDS”) containing the safety information regarding the
faulty pump that was believed to have caused the fumes. On October
21, 2002, he requested that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (“OSHA”) perform an investigation regarding the
fumes emanating from his delivery truck. Appellant further filed
a written formal complaint. OSHA found that the hazard had already
been investigated, identified as a leaking pump, and had been
corrected; on October 28, 2002 OSHA closed the file. On January
17, 2003, Meuser wrote to OSHA formalizing a complaint as to
FedEx’s refusal to provide him the MSDS sheets. After some time,
the MSDS sheets were obtained from the vendor and provided to
Meuser on January 24, 2003, after Meuser’s return from a two week
30042-MAP, Docket No. 35.
- 3 -
vacation. Although OSHA cited FedEx for not having the MSDS on
site, no imposition of any monetary penalty was made.
In February 2003, Meuser contracted a respiratory illness and
received one-week’s leave under the Family Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”). Later in Spring 2003, Meuser’s route was changed as part
of a comprehensive overhaul of courier assignments, which had been
determined since November 2002, but postponed at the request of the
drivers. The new route resulted in a larger geographical area, but
nonetheless required from Meuser fewer stops per hour.
In April 2003, Meuser requested from his supervisor a
replacement truck because the vehicle he was driving was too
“dusty.” FedEx Senior Manager, Joseph Marotta, suspected that this
complaint was merely a tactic to have someone deliver to Meuser,
with the requested replacement truck, a package that he had left
behind at the station that morning, enabling Meuser to avoid
returning to pick up the package and/or being disciplined for
leaving the package behind. Consequently, Appellant was provided
online counseling, which constitutes the first step in FedEx’s
progressive discipline process, for failing to take the package on
his route.
On or about April 15, 2003, Meuser used his truck dispatch
system to send a female courier a communication (“DADS message”) in
which he accused her of falsifying documents (specifically DEX 17
scans), which is considered a serious offense by FedEx. On April
- 4 -
16, 2003, due to Meuser’s use of the dispatch system to make
serious accusations against a courier, he was suspended with pay
pending an investigation of the incident by the Operations Manager,
James Langone. On April 17, 2003, after completion of Langone’s
investigation, Meuser received documented counseling for his
behavior and was sent a copy of FedEx’s Acceptable Conduct policy,
Section 2-5 in The People Manual.
On September 3, 2003, a FedEx customer on Appellant’s route,
Mrs. Emily Robertson, complained to FedEx about a late package
delivery. Meuser admitted that although the package was mislabeled
and misaddressed, he knew the correct delivery address.
Nevertheless, since he noticed the mistake at the end of the day it
was too late to deliver the package and therefore he classified the
package as a “DEX3”, a code for “Delivery Exception 3.” Said
codification is only appropriate when the courier has no knowledge
of where to deliver the package.2 Consequently, there was a delay
in the package delivery. After Mrs. Robertson’s complaint of the
non-delivery of the package, Meuser was instructed by his
2
The record is undisputed that by coding a package DEX3 and
returning it to the station undelivered, a courier represents that
he does not know where the address is located and the courier
avoids being charged with a service failure for that package. Any
claim by Appellant regarding this matter is inconsistent with the
record as Appellant, in his deposition, admitted that although he
understood that DEX3 was not to be used when a courier knew the
location of the address, he disagreed with the policy. Meuser
cannot contradict a prior deposition statement via a later sworn
testimony. See Torrech-Hernandez v. General Electric, 519 F.3d 41,
47 (1st Cir. 2008).
- 5 -
supervisor to deliver the package early the next morning and to
smooth over the matter with the customer. (FedEx considers
recipients of packages to be customers). The next morning Meuser
alleges that he delivered the package, apologized and conversed
with Mrs. Robertson in the spirit of trying to establish a rapport
with her. Meuser further alleges that after he left the customer,
he thought he had done a great job and understood that Mrs.
Robertson was content. Nevertheless, after the delivery, Mrs.
Robertson complained to FedEx again and stated that Meuser’s
comments were unprofessional, that his manner was threatening and
that he accused her of possibly causing him to be subsequently
fired because of her complaint.3 Based on this incident, FedEx
supervisors shifted Meuser to a different route and placed him on
paid investigative suspension. As a result of the investigation,
FedEx issued a warning letter to Meuser. Appellant proffers that
couriers are almost never removed from their routes unless they
have been terminated and that he was removed from his route after
seven years with just one customer complaint.
Subsequent to his assignment to the new route, Meuser
contacted a number of FedEx customers whom he knew personally and
asked them to write to FedEx complaining about FedEx’s decision to
change his route. Meuser received a second warning letter on
3
According to Appellant’s Brief, Mrs. Robertson was asked by
Langone to put her complaints, regarding the incident with Meuser,
in writing.
- 6 -
September 25, 2003, for involving FedEx customers and for divulging
internal FedEx confidential information. Meuser was further
informed that his three-day paid investigative suspension was
converted into an unpaid suspension. Nevertheless, Meuser
continued on his new route with no other changes in pay or
benefits.
On November 17, 2003, Meuser submitted two letters to his
supervisor, one requesting his personnel file under Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 149, § 52C, and the other asking for a written statement as to
why as of that day his personal tuition reimbursement had not been
reimbursed. In a meeting held that same day between Meuser, James
Langone and Ms. Lisa Patterson, the recently appointed Senior
Manager who had minimal knowledge of Meuser’s history and no
knowledge of the OSHA complaints, Ms. Patterson told Meuser that
the letter regarding his tuition reimbursement was disrespectful in
tone. During the meeting Ms. Patterson leaned across the table,
slammed her hands on the table and “screamed” that “this would not
be tolerated.” Appellant further alleges that since he was
terrified at Patterson’s reaction, he withdrew his letter.4
Subsequently, Meuser resigned from his position on December 5,
4
The District Court noted that the record was unclear as to
whether Meuser intended to withdraw his tuition letter or his
letter requesting his personnel file since he had submitted both
letters on November 17, 2003. Nevertheless, the district court
being properly cautious assumed that both letters had been
withdrawn.
- 7 -
2003. Appellant claims that he thought he was on the verge of
being terminated anyway and had been told by Langone that he would
have a positive rehire status. Nevertheless, one day after
submitting his resignation, Meuser learned that he would be
ineligible for positive rehire status because of his two warning
letters and attempted to rescind his resignation. FedEx declined
to accept his rescission. Consequently, the employment
relationship ended.
This suit, the district court’s summary judgment order and
Meuser’s timely appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review the district court’s grant of a summary judgment de
novo. See Collazo v. Nicholson, 535 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2008).
Nevertheless, “‘[w]e may affirm the district court's decision on
any grounds supported by the record.’” Id. (quoting
Estades-Negroni v. Assocs. Corp. of N. Am., 377 F.3d 58, 62 (1st
Cir. 2004). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court
“constru[es] the record in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant and resolv[es] all reasonable inferences in the party’s
favor.” Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32,
38 (1st Cir. 2002).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing all factual
disputes in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there
- 8 -
is no genuine issue of material fact that would prevent judgment
for the moving party as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Montfort-Rodriguez v. Rey-Hernandez, 504 F.3d 221, 224 (1st Cir.
2007). A genuine issue exists where “a reasonable jury could
resolve the point in favor of the nonmoving party.” Suarez v.
Pueblo Int’l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2000). Once the
moving party avers an absence of evidence to support the non-moving
party’s case, the non-moving party must offer “definite, competent
evidence to rebut the motion.” Mesnick v. General Electric Co.,
950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991). However, “‘[c]redibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of
legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those
of a judge.’” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.
133, 150 (2000)(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242 (1986)); see also Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545,
554-55 (1990); Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
370 U.S. 690, 696 n.6 (1962).
“Even in cases where elusive concepts such as motive or intent
are at issue, summary judgment may be appropriate if the nonmoving
party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable
inferences, and unsupported speculation.” Medina-Munoz v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990)(citing Rossy v.
Roche Prods., Inc., 880 F.2d 621, 624 (1st Cir. 1989); Oliver v.
Digital Equipment Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 109-10 (1st Cir. 1988)); see
- 9 -
also Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927, 935 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Although
we give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, a party cannot rest on ‘conclusory allegations,
improbable inferences, [or] unsupported speculation’ to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.”)(quoting McCarthy v. Northwest
Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995)). Furthermore,
the non-moving party’s burden cannot be satisfied with a
declaration that “without proper explanation” contradicts his/her
prior deposition testimony. See Torrech-Hernandez, 519 F.3d at 47.
B. Count I: Violation of Massachusetts Civil Rights Act
We agree with the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s
claim under the MCRA, since there is no evidence in the record to
show that FedEx violated the MCRA by interfering with Appellant’s
rights secured by the Constitution or laws of either the United
States or the Commonwealth, by threats, intimidation or coercion.
Appellant alleges that summary judgment was improperly entered as
to Count I of the Complaint, since the evidence presented
demonstrated issues of material fact. We disagree and explain.
The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, requires a Plaintiff to
demonstrate that “(1) his exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of either the United States or the
Commonwealth, (2) has been interfered with, or attempted to be
interfered with, and (3) that the interference or attempted
interference was by ‘threats, intimidation or coercion.’” Bally v.
- 10 -
Northeastern Univ., 532 N.E.2d 49, 51-52 (Mass. 1989)(quoting Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11H); see also Andresen v. Diorio, 349 F.3d 8,
14 (1st Cir. 2003); Kelley v. LaForce, 288 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.
2002)(“The MCRA provides a cause of action for any person whose
rights under the Constitution, federal law, or state law have been
interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion of
another.”); Ayasli v. Armstrong, 780 N.E.2d 926, 934 (Mass. App.
Ct. 2002); Howcroft v. City of Peabody, 747 N.E.2d 729, 745 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2001)(“The MCRA creates no substantive civil rights;
rather, it provides a mechanism for obtaining relief from the
interference, or attempted interference, with rights conferred by
Federal or Massachusetts law.”) The Supreme Judicial Court has
held that the interference or attempted interference must be by
threat, intimidation or coercion, defined as follows:
“[t]hreat” in this context involves the
intentional exertion of pressure to make
another fearful or apprehensive of injury or
harm. See Redgrave v. Boston Symphony
Orchestra, Inc., 502 N.E.2d 1375, 1381 (Mass.
1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Delaney v.
Chief of Police of Wareham, 539 N.E.2d 65, 71-
72 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) (“acts or language by
which another is placed in fear of injury or
damage”). Cf. Commonwealth v. Ditsch, 475
N.E.2d 1235 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (reasonable
apprehension on the part of the recipient of a
criminal threat). “Intimidation” involves
putting in fear for the purpose of compelling
or deterring conduct. See Redgrave v. Boston
Symphony Orchestra, Inc., supra; Delaney v.
Chief of Police of Wareham, supra (“creation
of fear to compel conduct”). In Deas v.
Dempsey, 530 N.E.2d 1239, 1241 (Mass. 1988),
we quoted a definition of coercion from
- 11 -
Webster's New International Dictionary at 519
(2d ed. 1959): “the application to another of
such force, either physical or moral, as to
constrain him to do against his will something
he would not otherwise have done.” See
Delaney v. Chief of Police of Wareham, supra
(“the active domination of another's will”).
Planned Parenthood League v. Blake, 631 N.E.2d 985, 990 (Mass.
1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 868 (1994)(internal citations
modified); see also Davignon v. Hodgson, 524 F.3d 91, 112 (1st Cir.
2008); Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2001); Haufler v.
Zotos, 845 N.E.2d 322, 335 (Mass. 2006).
Appellant argues that the district court mischaracterized the
incidents as “a collection of minor, possibly harassing incidents
[which] cannot be sufficient to satisfy the definition of
threatening or coercive conduct under MCRA, especially where there
is little evidence of any intent by [Appellant’s] superiors to
intimidate him.” Meuser v. Federal Express Corporation, 524 F.
Supp. 2d 142, 148 (D. Mass. 2007). The facts, considered in the
light most favorable to Appellant based on the record before us,
are the following:
Appellant alleges that his employment’s environment began to
deteriorate after he filed the two OSHA complaints relating to the
fumes he detected in his truck (October 21, 2002) and requested the
MSDS sheets (January 17, 2003).5 For example, in mid-January 2003,
5
Meuser contends that he requested the MSDS sheets initially
in late October 2002, followed by a formal request at OSHA on
January 14, 2003. Nevertheless, FedEx’s tardiness in providing the
- 12 -
Meuser called Marotta, during his morning route, to ask him about
the MSDS sheets. Marotta was allegedly abrupt with Meuser and told
him that he did not have enough work if he had time to call about
the MSDS sheets during his working route hours. Marotta further
insinuated that Meuser had created the whole toxic fumes incident
of October 2002, in order to lay the foundation for a later suit
against FedEx. Furthermore, Meuser contends that the January 2003
OSHA inspection, which resulted in a citation by OSHA for not
having the required MSDS sheets on site, fueled Marotta’s
retaliatory behavior as evidenced by Marotta’s comment that “he
[Marotta] did not like to lose.”6
On January 24, 2003, the same day Meuser was provided with the
MSDS sheets, Meuser contends that he was subjected to an
unscheduled “check ride” by Langone.7 In April 2003, although all
sheets cannot be considered as a threat, intimidation or coercion
as required by the MCRA.
6
Although Marotta was allegedly abrupt as to Meuser’s MSDS
call, it should be noted that Meuser was calling Marotta, a senior
manager since November 2002, during working hours as to a personal
interest, disregarding that “[w]orking time is for work.” Republic
Aviation Corp., v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 803 n.10 (1945).
Furthermore, Marotta’s abruptness towards Meuser, his comment
regarding Meuser’s alleged fabrication of the fumes incident nor
the comment that “he did not like to lose,” cannot be considered as
Marotta trying to interfere or attempt to interfere with any of
Meuser’s rights by threat, intimidation or coercion.
7
The record shows that a “check ride” constitutes an accepted
method to supervise and evaluate the performance of a courier in
compliance with his route duties. The implementation of such a
common procedure in a package delivery business cannot be
considered as a threat, intimidation or coercion. Employers have
- 13 -
of the couriers’ work days were shortened to eight hours, Meuser’s
route was the only one that was altered to cover a larger area.
Meuser alleges that the enlargement of his route caused service
failures, delayed deliveries and rolled delivery (freight not
delivered) as evidenced by Mrs. Robertson’s delayed delivery.
Meuser was not given any help notwithstanding his reiterated
requests for assistance and despite the fact that it is a known
FedEx policy to assist couriers when possible.8 On April 16, 2003,
due to Meuser’s use of the dispatch system to make serious
accusations against Deb Dahlgren, a female courier, Meuser was
suspended with pay pending an investigation of the incident by his
Manager, James Langone. On April 17, 2003 after completion of
Langone’s investigation, Meuser received a documented counseling
for his behavior towards Deb Dahlgren and was sent a copy of
FedEx’s Acceptable Conduct policy, Section 2-5 in The People
a right to reasonably supervise and evaluate their employees.
Furthermore, Langone provided Meuser a favorable review on his
“check ride,” stating that Meuser had a “solid improvement since
[his] last checkride.” App. 165.
8
Even if, from all the changed routes, Meuser’s route was the
only one changed to cover a larger area, said business decision,
cannot be considered as a threat, intimidation or coercion, towards
Meuser. Furthermore, whether or not it was a wise business decision
“[c]ourts may not sit as super personnel departments, assessing the
merits — or even the rationality — of employers’ . . . business
decisions.” Mesnick, 950 F.2d at 825. It is uncontested that
although the route and schedule changes were implemented in April
2003, the business decision to change them had been announced in
November 2002, but delayed at the request of the couriers until
February 2003.
- 14 -
Manual.9 On April 18, 2003, during a meeting with Marotta and
Langone, Marotta told Meuser, regarding his request for a less
dusty vehicle, that “everything [he] was doing was bullshit,’” App.
499. Furthermore, Marotta made a comment during the meeting that
Meuser had somehow made up his February illness.10 On August 4,
2003 Meuser filed a request for tuition reimbursement that was not
approved until December 5, 2003.11 On September 11, 2003, Meuser
9
Meuser’s use of the dispatch system to accuse another FedEx
employee of falsifying documents was a direct violation of company
policy. Meuser further admitted during his deposition that there
was a growing tension between Deb Dahlgren and him regarding their
adjacent routes and a lack of willingness on her part to assist
Meuser in his area when she had a light workload or was available
to do so. Meuser further admitted that he had never addressed the
tension between them and that it was a matter he should have
brought to the attention of management but failed to do so.
Moreover, Meuser admitted that he lost his “cool” and had an
outstanding “tension” with Deb Dahlgren. Pursuant to the above
factual scenario, the Court cannot conclude that there was any MCRA
violation.
10
The record shows that Appellant recognized Marotta was
disciplined for his profanity during their meeting. Furthermore,
neither Marotta’s profanity towards Meuser nor his opinion that
Meuser had fabricated his illness, rises to level of threat,
intimidation or coercion required by the Act. The fact that Meuser
might have found Marotta’s opinion intimidating in some way, is
irrelevant. Cignetti v. Healy, 89 F. Supp. 2d 106, 125 (D. Mass.
2000). “The nature of a ‘threat’ should be examined from an
objective standpoint.” Id. Hence, “the state of mind of the
person threatened is not controlling.” Commonwealth v. DeVincent,
266 N.E.2d 314, 316 (Mass. 1971); see also Planned Parenthood
League, 631 N.E.2d at 990 (citing DeVincent, 266 N.E.2d at 316).
11
On August 4, 2003, Appellant had submitted a request to be
reimbursed for tuition for an introductory economics class. The
record shows that there was a misunderstanding as to which courses
were eligible for reimbursement. Consequently, on November 28,
2003, the tuition reimbursement representative sent Appellant a
letter explaining the proper requirements of eligibility for
- 15 -
received a routine non-disciplining attendance memorandum from Jim
Langone, informing Meuser that over the past twelve (12) months his
attendance had been marginal and that his absence the day before,
had put him below the company’s acceptable rate of 96.9%. It was
further recommended that necessary steps should be taken in order
to avoid this type of situation and that any further violations
would result in the issuance of a written Performance Reminder.12
In September 2003 Meuser’s route was changed due to the incident
with Mrs. Robertson. On September 25, 2003, Meuser was issued a
second warning letter for contacting a number of FedEx customers,
whom he knew personally, and divulging to them confidential
information by asking them to write to FedEx complaining about
FedEx’s determination to assign Meuser to another route. Finally,
on November 17, 2003, Meuser met with James Langone and the new
Senior Manager, Lisa Patterson, who had minimal knowledge of
Meuser’s history and no knowledge of his OSHA complaints.
Patterson told Meuser that the letter, allegedly requesting a
reimbursement. After Appellant corrected his application, he
resubmitted his request and the same was approved on December 5,
2003.
12
Meuser avers that since FedEx counted one of his FMLA leave
days (February 14, 2003) as a regular sick day, in the attendance
memorandum he received, FedEx interfered or attempted to interfere
with his FMLA rights by threats, intimidation or coercion. Since
FedEx accepted that the inclusion of that specific day in the
memorandum was an error and Appellant admits that he was granted
his FMLA leave requests, FedEx’s alleged conduct does not rise to
the level of threat, intimidation or coercion required under the
MCRA.
- 16 -
tuition reimbursement, was disrespectful in tone. During the same
meeting, Patterson slammed her hands on the table and “screamed”
that “this would not be tolerated.” Appellant alleges that since
he was terrified at Patterson’s reaction, he withdrew the letter.
Meuser resigned from his position on November 24, 2003, effective
December 5, 2003, after it had been represented by Langone that he
was eligible for positive rehire status. However, after learning
that having two warning letters in his record made him ineligible
for positive rehire status, Meuser attempted to rescind his
resignation.13 Nevertheless, FedEx declined to accept the
rescission.
After reviewing the aforementioned incidents and the evidence
of record, in the light most favorable to the Appellant, we find
that Meuser failed to establish that FedEx’s actions, considered
individually or together, constituted “threats, intimidation or
coercion” within the meaning of the MCRA. Furthermore, we find
that the incidents attested to by Appellant do not rise to the
13
Although in Meuser’s deposition he stated that his
resignation was contingent upon being in a positive rehire status,
he admitted that he did not check the policy book in order to make
sure that he was in fact eligible for positive rehire status.
Meuser further stated that after he submitted his resignation he
decided to check if he was eligible for positive rehire status,
something Meuser admits he should previously verified. Meuser was
advised by Jack Mackin that he was not eligible because he had two
active warning letters. Furthermore, nowhere in the record does
Meuser state or imply that Langone had purposely deceived him. An
employee’s ineligibility for rehire status after receiving two
active warning letters is uncontested on the record.
- 17 -
level of a threat, defined as “intentional exertion[s] of pressure
[that would] make another fearful or apprehensive of injury or
harm,” nor can they be considered to rise to the level of
intimidation defined as “putting in fear for the purpose of
compelling or deterring conduct,” or coercion defined as “such
force, either physical or moral, as to constrain [him] to do
against his will something he would not otherwise have done.”
Planned Parenthood League, 631 N.E.2d at 990; see also Haufler, 845
N.E.2d at 335. Furthermore, even if we disagree with FedEx’s
personnel or business decisions, a matter on which we take no view,
“[c]ourts may not sit as super personnel departments, assessing the
merits— or even the rationality— of employers’ . . . business
decisions.” Mesnick, 950 F.2d at 825.
Moreover, we find that the district court correctly determined
that “the record is entirely devoid of anything resembling the sort
of physical, moral, or economic pressure that courts have found
sufficient to support a claim under this statute . . . [especially
when] . . . the exception for claims based on non-physical coercion
remains a narrow one.” Meuser, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 147 (citing
Horne, 509 F. Supp. 2d at 115); see also Kennie v. Natural Res.
Dep’t of Dennis, 866 N.E.2d 983 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007); Buster v.
George W. Moore, Inc., 783 N.E.2d 399, 411 (Mass. 2003).
Nevertheless, we shall proceed to examine the only incident
that the district court found worthy of extended scrutiny. As
- 18 -
aforementioned, Appellant claims that during his meeting with
Patterson he was “threatened, intimidated, and coerced” by her
behavior and comments towards him when she slammed her hands on the
table and shouted at Meuser. Furthermore, Patterson suggested that
his letter had been written by a lawyer, and that if that was the
case, he should reflect on it, because his appeal would not be
considered. She further explained that if he had acquired an
attorney, any further complaints he might have had with FedEx would
then have to be dealt between his attorney and FedEx’s legal
department. Consequently, Appellant alleges that since he was
terrified at Patterson’s reaction, he “withdrew his letter
requesting his Personnel File.” Appellant’s Br. 18.14
Applying the objective standard of a reasonable person “to
determine whether [Patterson’s] conduct constituted threats,
14
Although Appellant alleges in his brief that Patterson’s
behavior during the meeting of November 17, 2003 was prompted by
his written request for a copy of his personnel file, in his
deposition he clearly accepts that the reason for the meeting and
her alleged reaction was because of his written tuition
reimbursement request. He further states that the letter he wrote
to Langone regarding this issue was the one Mrs. Patterson had on
her desk when she slammed her hands and stated that it was
“disrespectful.” App. 168-69. Meuser also testified that Ms.
Patterson explained to him that they had already discussed the
issue and that Mr. Langone had already explained why he was not
eligible for the reimbursement. Once again, Appellant cannot
create a question of fact with a later sworn testimony
contradicting his prior deposition testimony without proper
explanation, which clearly states that the incident was in fact
prompted by his request for the tuition reimbursement. See
Colantuoni v. Alfred Calcagni & Sons, 44 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.
1994); see also Torrech-Hernandez, 519 F.3d at 47.
- 19 -
intimidation, or coercion under the act,” Haufler, 845 N.E.2d at
335, we agree with the district court’s finding that this type of
behavior, “though it approaches the line,” fails to constitute the
kind of threatening or intimidating behavior the MCRA requires.
Meuser, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 148. As aforementioned, the fact that
Meuser might have found Patterson’s conduct intimidating or
threatening in some way, is irrelevant. Cignetti, 89 F. Supp. 2d
at 125. “[T]he state of mind of the person threatened is not
controlling,” it is whether a reasonable person in Appellant’s
circumstance would feel threatened, intimidated or coerced by Ms.
Patterson’s conduct. Commonwealth v. DeVincent, 266 N.E.2d 314,
316 (Mass. 1971); see also Planned Parenthood League, 631 N.E.2d at
990 (citing DeVincent, 266 N.E.2d at 316).
The Legislature “explicitly limited the
[act's] remedy to situations where the
derogation of secured rights occurs by
threats, intimidation or coercion.” The
Legislature intended that even a direct
deprivation of a plaintiff's secured rights
would not be actionable under the act unless
it were accomplished by means of one of these
three constraining elements.
Buster, 783 N.E.2d at 409 (internal citations omitted).
Consequently, we find using an objective standard, that Patterson’s
conduct of slamming her hands on the desk and allegedly shouting at
Meuser cannot be considered in any way within the context of the
act as either a threat, intimidation or coercion. See Haufler, 845
N.E.2d at 335; see also Cignetti, 89 F. Supp. 2d at 125.
- 20 -
Moreover, we emphasize that Patterson had replaced Mr. Marotta
as the senior manager of Hatfield, only two weeks prior to the
incident. It is uncontested that Patterson had minimal knowledge
of Meuser’s employment history at FedEx and no knowledge of the
fumes-related OSHA incident. Consequently, there is no evidence
that she was tainted by Appellant’s OSHA complaints, which is the
motivating factor alleged by Meuser under the MCRA. Hence, the
short-lived incident of slamming her hands on the desk, cannot be
linked with Meuser’s exercise of other statutory rights. See
Carmack v. Amtrak, 486 F. Supp. 2d 58, 92 (D. Mass. 2007)(“Nothing
in the record indicates that Amtrak's true motivation was to punish
Mr. Carmack for communicating with his union representative or for
exercising his right to free speech.”); Fletcher v. Szostkiewicz,
190 F. Supp. 2d 217, 232 (D. Mass. 2002) (criticizing a “pattern of
harassment” as a possible basis for a finding of threatening
behavior).
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in
dismissing Appellant’s claim under MCRA.
C. Count III: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
We agree with the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s
common law claim for discharge in violation of public policy.
Appellant alleges that the district court improperly entered
summary judgment on Count III since the record shows that he was
subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment and retaliation
- 21 -
from October 2002 until his resignation on November 24, 2003.
Appellant further alleges that although he requested to return to
work at FedEx, his amenability was predicated upon a future change
in management. Moreover, Meuser avers that his resignation was
submitted with the assumption that he was eligible for re-hire.
“Massachusetts courts recognize an exception to the general
at-will employment rule ‘when employment is terminated contrary to
a well-defined public policy.’” Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42,
59 (1st Cir. 2009)(quoting Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled
Children, 589 N.E.2d 1241, 1244 (Mass. 1992)); see also GTE
Products Corp. v. Stewart, 653 N.E.2d 161, 168-69 (Mass. 1995).
“For example: 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).” Hinchey v. NYNEX Corp., 144 F.3d 134, 145
(1st Cir. 1998)(citing Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the
Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 533 N.E.2d 1368, 1371 (Mass. 1989)).
Nevertheless, “[t]his public policy exception is construed
narrowly.” Day, 555 F.3d at 59 (citing King v. Driscoll, 638
N.E.2d 488, 492 (Mass. 1994)). “[T]o do otherwise would ‘convert
the general rule . . . into a rule that requires just cause to
terminate an at-will employee.’” King, 638 N.E.2d at 492 (quoting
Smith-Pfeffer, 533 N.E.2d at 1371).
- 22 -
As aforementioned, Appellant contends that he was
constructively discharged due to a sustained campaign of harassment
and retaliation from October 2002 until his resignation on November
24, 2003. Nevertheless, it has been well established in this
Circuit that
[t]o prove constructive discharge, a plaintiff
must usually show that [his] working
conditions were so difficult or unpleasant
that a reasonable person in [his] shoes would
have felt compelled to resign. It is not
enough that the plaintiff suffered the
ordinary slings and arrows that workers
routinely encounter in a hard, cold world.
In order to establish constructive discharge,
[Plaintiff] must show that conditions were so
intolerable that they rendered a seemingly
voluntary resignation a termination. In such
cases, [t]he question is not whether working
conditions at the facility were difficult or
unpleasant, but rather, an employee must show
that, at the time of his resignation, his
employer did not allow him the opportunity to
make a free choice regarding his employment
relationship. Thus, in order for a
resignation to constitute a constructive
discharge, it effectively must be void of
choice or free will.
Torrech-Hernandez, 519 F.3d at 50 (internal citations and
quotations omitted) (quoting De La Vega v. San Juan Star, Inc., 377
F. 3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2004); see also GTE Products Corp., 653
N.E.2d at 168-69 (“‘[T]he trier of fact must be satisfied that the
new working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant
that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt
compelled to resign.’ The test is met if, based on an objective
- 23 -
assessment of the conditions under which the employee has asserted
he was expected to work, it could be found they were so difficult
as to be intolerable.” (quoting Alicea Rosado v. Garcia Santiago,
562 F.2d 114, 119 (1st Cir.1977))); Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd.,
3 F.3d 476, 481 (1st Cir. 1993); Aviles-Martinez v. Monroig, 963
F.2d 2, 6 (1st Cir. 1992); Pena v. Brattleboro Retreat, 702 F.2d
322, 325 (2d Cir. 1983)).
We briefly explain our analysis as to why Plaintiff’s
allegations regarding his FedEx working conditions do not rise to
the level of intolerableness which would compel a reasonable person
in his position to resign. Plaintiff was in fact able to file his
two OSHA related complaints and he did not have any further related
OSHA complaints. Meuser admits that he applied and was granted
leave pursuant to the FMLA. Therefore, the fact that one day of
his FMLA leave was erroneously counted in a non-disciplinary
letter, recognized by the employer as an error, was not “‘so
difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in [his] shoes
would have felt compelled to resign.’” GTE Products Corp., 653
N.E.2d at 168-69 (quoting Alicea Rosado v. Garcia Santiago, 562
F.2d 114, 119 (1st Cir. 1977)). The “dusty truck” incident
resulted in a documented counseling without any suspension; it was
not unreasonable for the employer to opine that he used the “dusty
truck” to camouflage a failure in his services (leaving a package
behind). The “DADS” usage by Meuser to send an offensive message
- 24 -
to a female courier co-worker, regarding an issue that occurred a
year earlier, resulted in a documented counseling for using an
employment related communication instrument that could not be used
for that purpose. Furthermore, Meuser admitted that he had a
grudge against the female worker and that he “lost his cool.”
Hence, Meuser could not be affected to the point of “intolerable”
work environment. Moreover, the tuition reimbursement was in fact
a fringe benefit which was alerted to him by management, Mr.
Langone, during a routine “check ride.” Meuser had not stated in
the request that the reimbursement was for a graduate course. He
modified the request and the reimbursement was granted after the
company verified that “economics” was related to his employment.
Even if there was fault in initially denying the reimbursement, it
is not a matter compelling resignation. The change of Meuser’s
route, and of all the other couriers’, was a business decision
determined in November 2002, prior to other work-related incidents,
and implemented after he returned from FMLA leave, during April
2003. Meuser alleged that the order was a reprisal for Meuser
requesting the MSDS sheets in January 17, 2003, while he was
delivering packages. Nevertheless, it is uncontested on the record
that the decision to change the routes as to all the couriers was
made on November 2002 and postponed for a later date at the request
of the couriers. The alleged “check ride” reprisal resulted in no
disciplinary action whatsoever, it constituted a valid traditional
- 25 -
manner to check courier performance, and resulted in a positive
evaluation for Meuser. Hence, Meuser cannot seriously allege that
the “check ride” was so “unpleasant” to the point of compelling him
to resign. Finally, the most significant disciplinary action,
wherein Meuser was suspended, was caused by Meuser’s own conduct.
Appellant recruited and involved FedEx customers relating to the
disciplinary action taken by FedEx against Meuser due to the
incident with Mrs. Robertson, a FedEx client. The customers were
recruited by Meuser in an effort to persuade FedEx to rescind the
disciplinary action of changing his route. The communication of
Meuser with FedEx customers was thus not authorized and further
revealed inside information to clients.
After a thorough review of the record, we are in agreement
with the district court’s finding that “[n]othing in the record of
this case would justify a jury in reasonably concluding that
Plaintiff’s working conditions reached anything approaching the
level of [intolerableness] required to provide a basis for a claim
of wrongful discharge.” Meuser, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 149.
Furthermore, we find that the fact that Meuser attempted to rescind
his resignation, after he learned that he was not eligible for
positive rehire status as he originally thought, is clear evidence
that Meuser’s working conditions were not “so difficult or
unpleasant that a reasonable person in [his] shoes would have felt
compelled to resign,’” GTE Products Corp., 653 N.E.2d at 169
- 26 -
(quoting Alicea Rosado, 562 F.2d at 119), and that he had “the
opportunity to make a free choice regarding his employment
relationship.” Torrech-Hernandez, 519 F.3d at 50. In other words,
his resignation was not “effectively . . . void of choice or free
will.” Id.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein we affirm the district court’s
decision since as the district court eloquently stated, “it would
be false charity to permit this case to go forward where the record
is simply inadequate as a matter of law to support the claims.”
Meuser, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 149.
Affirmed.
- 27 -
Meuser v. Federal Express Corp.
Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Date filed: 2009-05-04
Citations: 564 F.3d 507
Copy Citations