Opinion ID: 2719372
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bashar's Interference

Text: Locke's contention that Bashar foiled the issuance of his security badge and thereby placed US Airways in breach of the Agreement warrants a somewhat lengthier analysis. At the outset, we note that Locke identifies no specific provision of the Agreement violated by Bashar's alleged interference. Nevertheless, we accept the underlying premise that if US Airways prevented Locke from obtaining his security badge, US Airways could not then terminate Locke for failing to obtain a badge. See Lobosco v. Donovan, 565 N.E.2d 819, 821 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991) ([A] promisor may not avoid his promised performance based on the nonoccurrence of a condition, where the promisor has himself hindered or prevented its occurrence.); see also Rigs v. Sokol, 61 N.E.2d 538, 542 (Mass. 1945); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245 & cmt. a, -10- illus. 1 (1981). In other words, US Airways could not circumvent its obligations under the Agreement simply by making a badge unattainable and thereby preventing Locke from fulfilling a condition of his reinstatement. That said, the record evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the badge denial was in fact attributable to Bashar and, by extension, to US Airways.4 Although Locke points to evidence showing that Bashar personally opposed his badge application, he fails to establish a triable issue on whether MassPort ultimately denied his badge application for that reason rather than because of independent security concerns. Locke's claim rests primarily on an email exchange between Bashar and MassPort security officials a few days prior to the November 3 badge denial. On the evening of October 30, Bashar received the following email from Captain Richard Lane of the State Police: The Major received a phone call from LtCol Smith, MSP Field Services, inquiring why we (MSP) will mt [sic] give Mr. Locke his badge back since he has served his two week suspension and US Air wants Mr Locke back at work. . . . LtCol Smith still insists that Major Concannon send him an email on Monday morning on whether or not we are going to give Mr Locke his badge back. 4 In light of our ultimate conclusion that Bashar had no influence on MassPort's decision, we do not address the potentially vexing question of whether the challenged actions of Bashar, a US Airways employee, were properly attributable to US Airways and therefore placed the company in breach of the Agreement. -11- I need to know if USAir's position has changed on this issue. If it has not, then the Aviation Security Director's [i.e., Concannon's] position will remain unchanged. Bashar replied late the following evening that USAirways is okay with returning Tom Locke's airport badge back to him. Roughly ten minutes later, Lane sent the following reply, copying Concannon and others on the email: This sudden change in position is extremely disturbing. However, if USAir wants Tom Locke to have a SIDA badge he must re- apply with USAir as the sponsor. The process does not allow a badge to simply be re-issued in this matter. Locke was removed from the system because he was arrested for offenses committed on Massport property over a significant amount of time. His badge was taken because the Aviation Security Director has concerns that someone who would commit such crimes could also be compromised on security. When and if Locke's application for a SIDA badge is filed it will be processed accordingly. Bashar then replied approximately an hour later: I do not support the decision to return Tom Locke's badge. I was informed by USAirways labor relations department responsible for the maintenance department that once a decision was make [sic] I did not have the authority to prevent him from getting a SIDA badge. If you could hold off processing his badge until I have a chance to talk to our legal department on Monday I would appreciate. Bashar spoke to US Airways' labor relations department the next day (Monday, November 2) and was told that it was okay for [Locke] to come back; Bashar then passed this information along to Lane on -12- the same day. Concannon issued the letter denying Locke's badge application on the following day, November 3. Locke places great weight on Bashar's statement in the final email that he [did] not support the decision to return Tom Locke's badge and on Bashar's accompanying request that the badge processing be held off. In his brief, he further claims that [t]he Massachusetts State Police had indicated that Mr. Bashar's direction would mandate that a badge would not be issued and that Concannon acknowledged that Mr. Bashar's opposition . . . had been a 'cause' of the non-issuance of the badge. These latter allegations are unsupported in the record, however, leaving Locke unable to establish a causal nexus between Bashar's email and MassPort's decision to deny his badge application. Although the record provides some tepid support for the proposition that US Airways' position was germane to the badging decision, there is no indication that Bashar's personal view had any bearing. Indeed, Bashar himself stated in the allegedly impugning email that he did not have the authority to prevent [Locke] from getting a SIDA badge once US Airways had made a decision to support Locke's application. Nor did Bashar's correspondence suggest that US Airways opposed badge issuance; in -13- fact, Bashar reported that US Airways was okay with returning Tom Locke's airport badge back to him.5 Concannon's deposition testimony, upon which Locke also relies, undermines rather than supports Locke's case. Concannon initially testified that at the time he signed the letter denying Locke's badge application, his memory [was] that U.S. Air was still discussing internally what its position was, and . . . its 5 At oral argument, Locke suggested that the very fact that Lane emailed Bashar to inquire whether USAir's position ha[d] changed indicates that Bashar's response was germane to MassPort's decision. That inference is sensible, but Locke again fails to distinguish between the airline's position and Bashar's own opinion. Bashar answered Lane's question unequivocally in his first email, indicating that the airline was okay with returning Locke's badge. The dissenting personal view voiced in Bashar's second email did not bear on the topic of Lane's inquiry, to wit, USAir's position on badge issuance. To be sure, MassPort does not appear to have understood at all times that US Airways supported Locke's application. As we have set forth above, after Bashar responded that US Airways was okay with returning Locke's badge, Lane replied, This sudden change in position is extremely disturbing -- suggesting, of course, that MassPort officials previously thought that US Airways opposed badge issuance. Concannon also recollected a change of position by US Airways on sponsorship: I do recall some information that U.S. Airways would not be sponsoring Mr. Locke, and at some point, I think there was a change of heart and then perhaps even another one after that. Similarly, Lieutenant Anthony Bille, also of the Massachusetts State Police, testified that although he wasn't privy to [US Airways'] internal discussions, he kn[e]w there was some sort of conflict within the company regarding Locke's badge application. But Locke proffers no theory as to why US Airways was initially perceived as opposing badge issuance, nor does the record support anything more than speculation on this question. This ambiguity, while perplexing, therefore does not suffice to defeat summary judgment. Nor are we in any event convinced that MassPort's initial understanding of the airline's position was relevant to its ultimate decision, as Bashar's email made clear that the airline did support Locke's application (hence the sudden change in position). -14- position may have had some impact on [his] decision, but [he] did not make a decision solely based on what U.S. Air would or wouldn't do. He then clarified: Mostly I would say if there was no sponsoring company, the point would be moot, and I wouldn't even have to make a decision because they were still discussing internally what their position was and whether they would actually sponsor Mr. Locke to get his badge back. I made a decision based on security. Concannon further explained that the Aviation Security Director's position alluded to in Lane's first email was that Concannon was not in favor of giving Mr. Locke his badge back at that point; that even if US Airways consistently supported Locke's badge application, that would not have required Concannon to issue a badge; and that the badging decision was based on Concannon's independent judgment as to whether or not [Locke was] a security risk and on his consulting with MassPort personnel on this question.6 Presented with the email chain between Bashar and MassPort, Concannon stated that [t]he implication of Mike Bashar's email to Rich Lane on November 1st [was] that U.S. Airways would have been okay with Tom Locke getting a badge back and that except for Bashar's personal opinion, nothing in the email chain indicated opposition to the badge from US Airways. Concannon 6 Lieutenant Bille echoed Concannon's testimony on this point, stating that US Airways had minimal effect on the badging decision by MassPort and the State Police, and that the decision was independent of the airway's or vendor's view on the matter . . . [b]ecause security [was] of the essence. -15- further testified that Locke's October 15 badge application, signed by the Badge Coordinator for US Airways, indicated that the airline was sponsoring Locke's application. This evidence lends no support to Locke's theory that the denial of his badge was traceable to any malign meddling of Bashar. Bashar's emails clearly distinguished US Airways' institutional support for Locke's application from his contrary personal opinion, which he acknowledged could not prevent badge issuance. And although Concannon initially suggested that US Airways' position may have had some impact on his decisionmaking, he proceeded to explain that the airline would primarily impact his decision if it declined to sponsor Locke, such that the point would be moot, and [he] wouldn't even have to make a decision. That was not the case here. Locke submitted an application signed by US Airways' Badge Coordinator, and Bashar's emails informed MassPort that the airline supported Locke's application despite Bashar's own dissenting view. Moreover, after asking MassPort to hold off processing [Locke's] badge while he spoke to the legal department, Bashar followed up with MassPort the very next day, informing Lane that the labor relations department had told him that it was okay for [Locke] to come back. Therefore, the summary judgment record reveals no contradiction to Concannon's testimony that he ultimately made a decision based on security that Locke might exploit at trial. Locke's contrary belief that Bashar orchestrated the denial of his -16- application ultimately amounts to no more than that -- an unsupported belief that need not be credited at summary judgment. See Alicea, 744 F.3d at 778.7