Opinion ID: 547203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Common Law Retaliatory Discharge Claim

Text: 27 In count II of the complaint, plaintiff alleges a common law claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. The district court ruled that this count failed to state a claim, because Massachusetts law would not permit a common law claim for retaliatory discharge where the legislature has provided a statutory scheme to govern such claims, in Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 152 Sec. 75B. Magerer, 727 F.Supp. at 750-51. Plaintiff has included in his statement of the issues on appeal the question whether or not the District Court erred in determining that the plaintiff did not state a valid common law claim for violation of public policy where the legislature has already provided for a remedy. However, plaintiff has offered no argument challenging the district court's reasoning. In any event, we can find no flaw in the district court's analysis, which is fully supported by decisions of this court, see, e.g., Grubba v. Bay State Abrasives, 803 F.2d 746, 748 (1st Cir.1986), and of the Massachusetts courts, see Mello v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 402 Mass. 555, 524 N.E.2d 105, 106 & n. 2 (1988). 5