A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) significantly expanded the Massachusetts common-law public policy exception to termination of at-will employees.  This decision, Meehan v. Med. Info. Tech., Inc., SJC-13117, allows Massachusetts employees to now bring claims against their former employers when they are terminated solely on the basis of exercising their statutory right to rebut information that adversely affects their personnel file under G.L. c. 149, § 52C.

A brief examination of the facts in Meehan is illustrative.  According to his complaint, Meehan joined MediTech as a Sales Representative in 2010.  In 2017, MediTech redesignated Meehan as a Sales Specialist.  The new role diminished Meehan’s responsibilities and reduced his opportunities to earn commissions.  The next year, MediTech placed Meehan and two other employees on performance improvement plans.  Two weeks later, Meehan submitted a lengthy rebuttal to his performance improvement plan.  That same day, MediTech terminated Meehan’s employment.

G.L. c. 149, § 52C reads, in relevant part,

If there is a disagreement with any information contained in a personnel record, removal or correction of such information may be mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee. If an agreement is not reached, the employee may submit a written statement explaining the employee’s position which shall thereupon be contained therein and shall become a part of such employee’s personnel record. 

In his complaint, Meehan alleged that MediTech wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy. 

A divided, expanded panel of the Appeals Court affirmed a Superior Court decision dismissing Meehan’s complaint.  The SJC granted Meehan’s application for further appellate review. 

Traditionally, Massachusetts employers retain significant discretion with respect to the termination of at-will employees.  Massachusetts courts have, however, recognized a public policy exception to this liberal termination regime when employees are terminated for: asserting a legally guaranteed right, doing what the law requires, refusing to do that which the law forbids, and performing important public deeds even when not absolutely required.

Through Meehan, by expanding the public policy exception to terminations resulting from personnel file rebuttals, the SJC added sharp teeth to the personnel records statute.  Employees can now rebut negative marks on their personnel records without fear of retribution for exercising a statutory right.

In deciding to recognize a rather expansive remedy where the statute is otherwise silent, the SJC observed the likelihood that personnel file rebuttals are often part of emotionally charged conflicts between employers and employees.  When this is the case, the SJC advised that even “intemperate and contentious” rebuttals do not justify termination so long as the employee substantively intended to express disagreement with the state of their personnel record.  That protection, however, does not extend to threats of violence, abuse, or “similarly egregious responses.”     

A Massachusetts employer contemplating the termination of an at-will employee should consider whether that individual has recently submitted a rebuttal to their personnel file.  While employers still maintain broad discretion to terminate at-will employees, the SJC’s decision creates a new level of risk exposure and grants a private right of action that could spawn new litigation.

While the contours of the SJC’s expansion of the public policy exception will be fleshed out by further case law, employers contemplating the termination of at-will employees should consider the implications of Meehan:

• Employers contemplating the termination of an at-will employee should consider whether that individual has recently submitted a rebuttal to their personnel file.
• Is the termination based on a documented record of substandard performance or, alternatively, is it based on an employee’s reaction to a poor review?
• Threatening or abusive language in a rebuttal may justify termination, but simple disagreement will not.
• Employers will inevitably have to contend with more rebuttals by employees who receive negative reviews.  Employers should train their management and human resources professionals to handle these rebuttals with tact and diplomacy while still actively managing the employee at issue.
• Employers should pay close attention to compliance with the personnel records statute.  While the statute itself does not grant a private right of action, after Meehan, the plaintiffs employment bar is sure to take notice.