Alain and Monique Massot - Page 16

                                               - 16 -                                                  
           termination without cause).  We believe that Millipore took                                 
           petitioner’s claims seriously, particularly those in Massachusetts.3                        
                 The manner in which Millipore terminated petitioner potentially                       
           could be considered tortious. The nature of petitioner’s                                    
           relationship to the company and the details concerning the                                  
           termination of his employment were highly personal. Publishing the                          
           general distribution memorandum globally (which falsely indicated                           
           that petitioner was dissatisfied with his job and had resigned)                             
           without petitioner’s consent, to 5,000 employees of a Fortune 500                           
           company on the morning of petitioner’s firing, could be deemed a                            
           tactic by Millipore to force petitioner to leave quickly and                                

                  3     Possible causes of action in Massachusetts included:                           
            (1) Invasion of privacy; disclosure of private facts about an                              
            employee to other employees is a tort under the Right of Privacy                           
            Act, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 214, sec. 1B (1984); Bratt v. IBM                                
            Corp., 467 N.E.2d 126, 135-136 (Mass. 1984) (test for determining                          
            whether communication of personal information about an employee                            
            by an employer violates the statutory right of privacy requires a                          
            balancing of the “employer’s legitimate business interest in                               
            obtaining and publishing the information against the                                       
            substantiality of the intrusion on the employee’s privacy                                  
            resulting from the disclosure”); disclosure of private                                     
            information about an employee to other employees constitutes                               
            sufficient publication to maintain a libel action, see Bander v.                           
            Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 47 N.E.2d 595 (Mass. 1943); (2)                                
            defamation pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 231, sec. 92 (1986);                           
            if a plaintiff shows that a defendant in an action for libel                               
            acted with malice in making a defamatory statement, the plaintiff                          
            may recover even if the statement is true, see Shaari v. Harvard                           
            Student Agencies, Inc., 691 N.E. 2d 925, 927 (Mass. 1998);                                 
            damages for defamation and libel include mental suffering, harm                            
            to reputation and standing in the community, mental anguish, and                           
            personal humiliation; (3) negligent and intentional infliction of                          
            emotional distress caused by the manner and effect of discharge,                           
            see Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 355 N.E.2d 315 (Mass. 1976); (4)                           
            unfair termination; and (5) negligent firing.                                              

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011