Court Opinion

ID: 2964556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:27:25.061545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:57.582942
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [Not For Publication]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

        No. 96-1814

                               GEORGE F. REIDY, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                             TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Frederick T. Golder, with whom  Bernstein, Golder & Miller,  P.A.
             ___________________             _________________________________
        was on brief for appellants.
             Jay M. Presser, with whom Jeffrey C. Hummel and  Skoler, Abbott &
             ______________            _________________      ________________
        Presser, P.C. were on brief for appellee.
        _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  February 13, 1997
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  George Reidy challenges a summary judgment
                    Per Curiam.  
                    __________

          ruling  dismissing  his  wrongful discharge  claims  against  The

          Travelers Insurance Company  ("Travelers") for whom Reidy  worked

          for over twenty  years.  Although  Travelers contends that  Reidy

          proved incapable of performing his  work as a claims  representa-

          tive despite  a reasonable  accommodation  of his  stress-related

          "disability,"  Reidy  asserts that  Travelers'  justification was

          pretextual.  We affirm the district court judgment.  

                    The  four-count complaint  alleged  (i)  breach of  the

          employment contract; (ii) employment discrimination based on age;

          (iii) and on handicap; and (iv) claims for loss of consortium and

          nurture by his  spouse and children.1  As  concerns the claim for

          breach  of contract, Reidy appears to have believed that his long

          tenure  as  an  employee-at-will  protected  him  from  arbitrary

          termination, but  he adduced no  competent evidence, see  Fed. R.
                                                               ___

          Civ.  P.  56(e),  that Travelers  gave  him  any such  assurance.

          Instead,  Reidy  principally contends  that the  written employee

          manual  constituted  a   binding  employment  "contract"  barring

          arbitrary discharge  even though it  unambiguously provided  that

          Travelers was "free to terminate your employment at any time, for
                                                           __ ___ ____

          any or for  no reason, and with  or without advance  notice," and
                 ___  __ ______

          that  "no Travelers' manager or  other person at  the company has

          the  authority to make  a commitment of  guaranteed or continuing
                                                   __________

          employment."   (Emphasis added.)   Nor does Reidy  cite any other
                                                                           
          _________________________________________________________________

               1We review the summary judgment ruling de novo,  viewing all
               1                                      __ ____
          evidence in the light  most favorable to Reidy. Byrd  v. Ronayne,
                                                          ____     _______
          61 F.3d 1026, 1030 (1st Cir. 1995).

                                          2

          provision (e.g.,  minimum term  of employment) which  assured him
                     ____

          protection  from  unilateral,  unconditional  termination.   See,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Pearson v. John Hancock  Mut. Life Ins. Co., 979 F.2d  254,
          ____  _______    ________________________________

          256-57 (1st Cir. 1992).

                    The  age and  handicap  discrimination claims  fare  no

          better.   Massachusetts courts have no  jurisdiction over employ-
                                                  ____________

          ment-discrimination  claims  unless  the  plaintiff-employee  has

          filed  a  formal  complaint  with  the  Massachusetts  Commission

          Against Discrimination ("MCAD") within  six months of the alleged

          discriminatory act.   See Mass.  Gen. Laws ch.  151B,     4(1.B),
                                ___

          4(16), 5, 9; Clarke v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Calif., Inc., 57
                       ______    ______________________________________

          F.3d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Arkwright Mut. Ins.  Co.,
                                       _______    ________________________

          673 N.E.2d 40, 41  (Mass. 1996).  Reidy contends that his counsel

          mailed  a formal complaint  to the MCAD  on August  30, 1991, but

          there is  no evidence to  confirm its receipt  by the MCAD.   The

          official  MCAD  record  itself   reflects  no  formal  complaint.

          Moreover,  on September  20,  the MCAD  compliance officer  wrote

          Reidy  and  confirmed  the   receipt  of  his  letter  describing
          _____

          Travelers'  alleged discriminatory  conduct,  but advised  that a
                                                                          _

          formal  complaint  would  still  be necessary  to  initiate  MCAD
          ______  _________

          action.   A  copy of  the  MCAD letter  was  provided to  Reidy's

          counsel as well.  

                    Although the MCAD letter  plainly placed both Reidy and

          counsel on notice that the MCAD had received a letter from Reidy,
                                                         ______ ____ _____

          rather than any August 30 letter from Reidy's counsel enclosing a

          formal MCAD complaint,  neither Reidy nor counsel followed  up on

                                          3

          this obvious discrepancy or on the formal advice contained in the

          letter  from  the MCAD  compliance  officer.2   Accordingly,  the

          district  court  lacked  jurisdiction  and  the  employment-based

          discrimination claims were properly dismissed.3

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                                                           
          _________________________________________________________________

               2Thus,  Reidy's insistence that  the summary judgment ruling
               2
          penalized him for MCAD's administrative incompetence lacks record
                            ____
          support.  Of course, if cognizable, such unsubstantiated "defens-
          es" would all but eviscerate the exhaustion requirement.

               3Since Reidy no longer holds actionable employment discrimi-
               3
          nation  claims  against  Travelers, the  district  court properly
          dismissed  the related claims by the spouse and children as well.
          See Tauriac v.  Polaroid Corp., 716 F.  Supp. 672, 673 (D.  Mass.
          ___ _______     ______________
          1989) (citing Mouradian v.   General Elec. Co., 503  N.E.2d 1318,
                        _________      _________________
          1321    (Mass.  App.  Ct.) (dismissing  wife's  consortium  claim
          because husband had  no viable employment  discrimination claim),
          review  denied, 507 N.E.2d 1056 (1987)); see also Mass. Gen. Laws
          ______  ______                           ___ ____
          ch.  152,    24  (1990) (workers'  compensation statute  preempts
          consortium claims  of spouse, children and  parents); Hamilton v.
                                                                ________
          Baystate Med. Educ.  & Research Found.,  866 F. Supp. 51,  57 (D.
          ______________________________________
          Mass.  1994), aff'd, 66 F.3d 306 (1st Cir. 1995); St. Germaine v.
                        _____                               ____________
          Pendergast, 584 N.E.2d 611, 617-18 (Mass. 1992).
          __________

                                          4