 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cormier v. Pezrow New England2/27/2001
udge then ruled that " ll factors indicate that the core of the employment relationship between the [defendant] and plaintiff was in Hampden County." The judge concluded, based on his findings, that " lthough the act of notifying the plaintiff of the decision to terminate his employment occurred in Connecticut, the unlawful act of discrimination, the actual severance of the employment relationship between plaintiff and the [defendant] occurred in Hampden County, where the relationship was based."
2. The venue issue at trial. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict, claiming among other things that the evidence clearly established that the alleged act of unlawful discharge occurred in Connecticut, not in Hampden County, and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of improper venue. In denying the motion, the trial judge stated that he would not revisit the venue issue because it had already been decided by the motion judge. The trial judge, however, was not bound by the earlier determination of the motion judge. Salter v. Scott, 363 Mass. 396, 401-402 (1973). Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Holyoke, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 472, 475 n.4 (1987).
There was considerable evidence introduced on the plaintiff's case which brought the venue issue into sharper focus. We summarize the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Graci v. Massachusetts Gas & Elec. Light Supply Co., 7 Mass. App. Ct. 221, 222 (1979).
The plaintiff had worked in the business of sales and food brokerage since 1969 for Chase-Kolbin Associates, Inc. (Chase-Kolbin) In the fall of 1993, the defendant merged with Chase-Kolbin. Although certain positions were eliminated as a result of this merger, the plaintiff's position was not affected, and he continued employment as a sales representative for the defendant.
The plaintiff's duties included managing the accounts of customers located mainly in Hampden County and, as a result, he spent much of his time visiting those customers. While employed by Chase-Kolbin, the plaintiff had worked out of his home in Chicopee, Massachusetts, but, after the merger, the plaintiff "transferred everything" to the defendant's office in Enfield, Connecticut. At that office, the plaintiff had a desk and space to keep his files. When he was not calling on customer accounts in Hampden County, or meeting with manufacturers and account executives at the defendant's main office located in Westwood, Massachusetts, the plaintiff worked at the Enfield office.
On April 15, 1994, the plaintiff was working at his desk at the Enfield office, when two company executives called him into a private office and handed him a letter advising him that his position in the company had been eliminated. The decision to discharge the plaintiff was made in the company headquarters at Westwood.
The defendant argues that its motion to dismiss and its subsequent motion for a directed verdict based on a claim of improper venue should have been granted because the plaintiff's discharge did not occur in Hampden County. The plaintiff responds that the unlawful discharge because of his age occurred in Hampden County by virtue of the fact that the employment relationship between the parties existed in Hampden County.
Chapter 151B is a remedial legislative scheme which prescribes two "largely independent avenues for redress" for the type of statutory violation claimed by the plaintiff. See Brunson v. Wall, 405 Mass. 446, 452 (1989). The statute provides for either administrative action by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), with judicial review and enforcement of MCAD ruli
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|