Carleton Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries11/12/1997
Plymouth.
October 14, 1997.
November 12, 1997.
Present: Wilkins, C.J., Abrams, Lynch, Greaney, Marshall, & Ireland, JJ.
Employment, Discrimination, Termination. Anti-Discrimination Law, Burden of proof, Employment, Prima facie case, Race, Termination of employment. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 9, 1993.
The case was heard by Raymond J. Brassard, J., on motions for summary judgment.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.
The plaintiff, Carleton Matthews, an AfricanAmerican male, was terminated from his position as a forklift operator in the shipping department of the defendant's, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.'s, Middleborough manufacturing facility on April 23, 1992, after he admitted to removing product (cranberry sauce) from the facility's premises without authorization. The plaintiff grieved his termination to arbitration pursuant to his collective bargaining agreement, and the arbitrator concluded, in a written decision which was not appealed, that the plaintiff had been terminated for just cause. The plaintiff filed complaints with the United States Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) alleging employment discrimination. The OFCCP issued a notice of violation (which it subsequently rescinded), and the MCAD entered a finding of probable cause.
The plaintiff next withdrew his charge before the MCAD and filed a complaint in the Superior Court, alleging that the defendant had terminated him because of his race in violation of G. L. c. 151B, Section 4 (1). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the judge granted the defendant's motion. Thereafter, the judge denied the plaintiff's motion to strike an affidavit submitted by the defendant's human resources manager. The plaintiff has appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. We affirm the summary judgment for the defendant.
1. The following facts are relevant for the purpose of summary judgment.
The defendant maintains at its Middleborough facility a set of "plant rules" which are divided into "major" and "minor" violations. Included as a major violation, which "may result in discharge or a disciplinary suspension," is "stealing," which "involves the stealing of ompany or other employee's property; stealing ompany time such as sleeping on the job, deliberate time card falsification, punching another's time card, claiming pay not due, etc."
On March 20, 1989, a memorandum was issued in which the plant manager highlighted "stealing," and three other major violations, as transgressions that the company would "not tolerate." The memorandum "clarif that [stealing] also [applies to] individuals who are removing product from production lines without authorization, removing product from any designated production or storage area, bringing product or company property outside of the area in which it normally resides without authorization. It includes product or company property that is in an individual's possession or under [the individual's] control[,] such as in a bag or locker or is removed from the control or domain of the company whether it is on the premises or off." The memorandum further stated: "all major violations as noted in the plant rules including stealing . . . will be dealt with in the most extreme manner possible. These plant rules when abused will be looked at as a threat to the w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|