NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-191
HEATHER MINTON & another1
vs.
INDUSTRIAL DEMOLITION LLC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After the termination of their employment by the defendant,
Industrial Demolition LLC (Industrial), the plaintiffs, Heather
and William Minton,2 filed a complaint in Superior Court
alleging, among other things, that they were wrongfully
terminated in violation of public policy.3 Industrial filed a
motion for summary judgment. The judge concluded that the
Mintons' claims of wrongful termination failed as a matter of
1 William Minton.
2As the plaintiffs share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for ease of reference.
3A prior complaint also alleged claims of quantum meruit and the manager of Industrial, Michael Roberts, was named as a defendant. These claims were dismissed by agreement as were all claims against Roberts. law and allowed the motion on all remaining counts.4 This appeal
ensued.
Background. We summarize the relevant material facts from
the summary judgment record viewed in the light most favorable
to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties. See Juliano v.
Simpson, 461 Mass. 527, 529 (2012). Industrial is a demolition
company with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri. It demolishes and redevelops properties throughout
the United States, hiring employees to move across the country
to work on its various projects. In September 2019, Industrial
hired William, a heavy equipment operator, to work on a
demolition project at Brayton Point in Somerset, Massachusetts
(project). Industrial also hired William's wife, Heather, to
serve as the safety director on the project and to help develop
a company safety program. There is no dispute that the
plaintiffs were hourly, at-will employees and that neither of
them had an employment contract with Industrial.
In November 2019, Industrial became the subject of an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) complaint.
Industrial placed Heather in charge of facilitating OSHA's
investigation, which was resolved successfully during the summer
4 The Mintons did not oppose summary judgment with respect to their breach of contract claims. Thus, only their claims alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy are before us.
2 of 2020. Heather did not file any internal or external
complaint regarding an OSHA violation during her employment with
Industrial. However, shortly after her employment was
terminated in August 2020, she filed a whistleblower complaint
with OSHA and then withdrew it thirteen months later.
Additionally, in June and July 2020, while the OSHA
investigation was pending, she reported two unrelated incidents
to her superiors: (1) a haul truck driver, who was not an
Industrial employee, was speeding at the worksite and almost
struck her; and (2) another independent contractor took a
photograph of her license plate and followed her in an attempt
to intimidate her. Neither incident was reported to law
enforcement or any other external entity; however, Heather filed
an internal safety report regarding the first matter.
As noted, William worked as a heavy equipment operator. On
April 21, 2020, William's supervisor, Roger Oberkramer, was
asked to leave the worksite based on a complaint lodged by
another employee. William was promoted to fill Oberkramer's
position. When Oberkramer refused to leave, he and William
argued and Oberkramer threatened him and Heather. William
notified his superiors of the argument and threat. Oberkramer
was allegedly the subject of additional complaints by his
subordinates. Industrial transferred Oberkramer to a different
job site but did not fire him.
3 Soon after William was promoted, between June and August
2020, the project began to wind down and Industrial started to
transfer equipment to another smaller project in Fox Lake,
Minnesota. The Mintons expected to be selected for that
project, and they explored various living accommodations in
Minnesota. As it turned out, they were not asked to work on the
new project. In August 2020, Industrial informed the Mintons
and other employees that the project was nearly complete, and
soon, their services would no longer be needed. Industrial put
Oberkramer in charge of the Minnesota project, and did not hire
a safety coordinator for it.
As previously noted, the Mintons contend that the
termination of their employment was in violation of public
policy and, consequently, the judge erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Industrial. We conclude otherwise.
Discussion. "We review the disposition of a motion for
summary judgment de novo, to determine whether all material
facts have been established such that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (citation omitted).
American Int'l Ins. Co. v. Robert Seuffer GMBH & Co., 468 Mass.
109, 113 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1061 (2014). Although
our review is de novo, we reach the same conclusion as the judge
for the reasons articulated in her well-reasoned memorandum of
decision and order.
4 As the judge explained, Heather claims that she was fired
in retaliation for raising safety concerns and for her
involvement in the OSHA investigation. William argues he was
fired because Industrial preferred that Oberkramer, who was less
safety conscious, supervise the project in Minnesota. Neither
claim can survive summary judgment.
As an initial matter, "[s]ubject to rare public policy
exceptions, employment at will can be terminated for any reason
or for no reason." Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465,
478 (2001). The public policy exception applies in
circumstances where an employee is 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)." Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled
Children, 412 Mass. 469, 472 (1992), quoting Smith-Pfeffer v.
Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass.
145, 149-150 (1989). The exception generally does not apply
where an employee is fired after lodging a complaint based on
"the internal administration, policy, functioning, and other
matters of an organization." King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576,
583 (1994), S.C., 424 Mass. 1 (1996).
Here, to the extent that Heather bases her claim of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-191
HEATHER MINTON & another1
vs.
INDUSTRIAL DEMOLITION LLC.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After the termination of their employment by the defendant,
Industrial Demolition LLC (Industrial), the plaintiffs, Heather
and William Minton,2 filed a complaint in Superior Court
alleging, among other things, that they were wrongfully
terminated in violation of public policy.3 Industrial filed a
motion for summary judgment. The judge concluded that the
Mintons' claims of wrongful termination failed as a matter of
1 William Minton.
2As the plaintiffs share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for ease of reference.
3A prior complaint also alleged claims of quantum meruit and the manager of Industrial, Michael Roberts, was named as a defendant. These claims were dismissed by agreement as were all claims against Roberts. law and allowed the motion on all remaining counts.4 This appeal
ensued.
Background. We summarize the relevant material facts from
the summary judgment record viewed in the light most favorable
to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties. See Juliano v.
Simpson, 461 Mass. 527, 529 (2012). Industrial is a demolition
company with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri. It demolishes and redevelops properties throughout
the United States, hiring employees to move across the country
to work on its various projects. In September 2019, Industrial
hired William, a heavy equipment operator, to work on a
demolition project at Brayton Point in Somerset, Massachusetts
(project). Industrial also hired William's wife, Heather, to
serve as the safety director on the project and to help develop
a company safety program. There is no dispute that the
plaintiffs were hourly, at-will employees and that neither of
them had an employment contract with Industrial.
In November 2019, Industrial became the subject of an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) complaint.
Industrial placed Heather in charge of facilitating OSHA's
investigation, which was resolved successfully during the summer
4 The Mintons did not oppose summary judgment with respect to their breach of contract claims. Thus, only their claims alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy are before us.
2 of 2020. Heather did not file any internal or external
complaint regarding an OSHA violation during her employment with
Industrial. However, shortly after her employment was
terminated in August 2020, she filed a whistleblower complaint
with OSHA and then withdrew it thirteen months later.
Additionally, in June and July 2020, while the OSHA
investigation was pending, she reported two unrelated incidents
to her superiors: (1) a haul truck driver, who was not an
Industrial employee, was speeding at the worksite and almost
struck her; and (2) another independent contractor took a
photograph of her license plate and followed her in an attempt
to intimidate her. Neither incident was reported to law
enforcement or any other external entity; however, Heather filed
an internal safety report regarding the first matter.
As noted, William worked as a heavy equipment operator. On
April 21, 2020, William's supervisor, Roger Oberkramer, was
asked to leave the worksite based on a complaint lodged by
another employee. William was promoted to fill Oberkramer's
position. When Oberkramer refused to leave, he and William
argued and Oberkramer threatened him and Heather. William
notified his superiors of the argument and threat. Oberkramer
was allegedly the subject of additional complaints by his
subordinates. Industrial transferred Oberkramer to a different
job site but did not fire him.
3 Soon after William was promoted, between June and August
2020, the project began to wind down and Industrial started to
transfer equipment to another smaller project in Fox Lake,
Minnesota. The Mintons expected to be selected for that
project, and they explored various living accommodations in
Minnesota. As it turned out, they were not asked to work on the
new project. In August 2020, Industrial informed the Mintons
and other employees that the project was nearly complete, and
soon, their services would no longer be needed. Industrial put
Oberkramer in charge of the Minnesota project, and did not hire
a safety coordinator for it.
As previously noted, the Mintons contend that the
termination of their employment was in violation of public
policy and, consequently, the judge erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Industrial. We conclude otherwise.
Discussion. "We review the disposition of a motion for
summary judgment de novo, to determine whether all material
facts have been established such that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law" (citation omitted).
American Int'l Ins. Co. v. Robert Seuffer GMBH & Co., 468 Mass.
109, 113 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1061 (2014). Although
our review is de novo, we reach the same conclusion as the judge
for the reasons articulated in her well-reasoned memorandum of
decision and order.
4 As the judge explained, Heather claims that she was fired
in retaliation for raising safety concerns and for her
involvement in the OSHA investigation. William argues he was
fired because Industrial preferred that Oberkramer, who was less
safety conscious, supervise the project in Minnesota. Neither
claim can survive summary judgment.
As an initial matter, "[s]ubject to rare public policy
exceptions, employment at will can be terminated for any reason
or for no reason." Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465,
478 (2001). The public policy exception applies in
circumstances where an employee is 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)." Wright v. Shriners Hosp. for Crippled
Children, 412 Mass. 469, 472 (1992), quoting Smith-Pfeffer v.
Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Sch., 404 Mass.
145, 149-150 (1989). The exception generally does not apply
where an employee is fired after lodging a complaint based on
"the internal administration, policy, functioning, and other
matters of an organization." King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576,
583 (1994), S.C., 424 Mass. 1 (1996).
Here, to the extent that Heather bases her claim of
wrongful termination on the safety report she filed in June
5 2020, her argument fails because the report constitutes an
unactionable complaint about internal matters. See Smith-
Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 151 ("internal matters, including internal
policies, could not be the basis of a public policy exception to
the at-will rule"); Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos., 402 Mass. 555,
558-559 (1988) (no public policy claim where plaintiff told
superiors about other employees' false damage and shortage
claims against company's warehouse, manufacturers, and
suppliers). To the extent that Heather bases her claim on her
involvement with the OSHA investigation, her claim also fails
because (1) she did not file an OSHA complaint until after she
was terminated, and (2) she was never in an adversarial
relationship with Industrial during the investigation. Contrast
Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 807
(1991) (issue of material fact existed where employee claimed
that termination was "motivated by a desire to interfere with or
retaliate for his cooperation with the [ongoing governmental]
investigation"). As the judge aptly observed, "[n]o reasonable
jury could infer that [Heather] was terminated for serving as
the point of contact for OSHA where she was designated the role
by Industrial Demolition, and she obtained a favorable outcome
to its benefit."
With respect to William, we again agree with the judge who
observed that "there is no evidence in the record from which a
6 jury could reasonably infer that [William's] termination was a
result of his complaint about Mr. Oberkramer." Furthermore,
even if we were to assume that such an inference were
reasonable, William's complaint regarding Oberkramer, like
Heather's safety reports, constitutes an internal complaint for
which there is no redress under the public policy exception.5
Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of
Industrial.
So ordered.
By the Court (Vuono, Brennan & D'Angelo, JJ.6),
Clerk
Entered: April 24, 2025.
5 The Mintons' reliance on Mercado v. Manny's T.V. & Appliance, Inc., 77 Mass. App. Ct. 135, 139 (2010), is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff was terminated after refusing to install appliances because he did not have the requisite licenses.
6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.