Weiss v. DHL Express, Inc. , 718 F.3d 39 ( 2013 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 12-1853
12-1864
JEREMY M. WEISS,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v.
DHL EXPRESS, INC.,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Stahl, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Richard B. Lapp, with whom Camille A. Olson, Kristin G.
McGurn, Jeffrey M. Burns and Seyfarth Shaw LLP were on brief, for
appellant.
Paul F. Kelly, with whom Segal Roitman, LLP was on brief, for
appellee.
June 3, 2013
HOWARD, Circuit Judge. Jeremy Weiss was a rising star at
DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") until his termination in September 2009,
ostensibly for his failure to properly investigate, document, and
ameliorate the misconduct of an employee under his supervision. The
termination occurred just months before Weiss was to receive a
$60,000 bonus. Weiss filed suit in Massachusetts state court to
recover the bonus on the grounds that he was terminated without
good cause, which under the terms of the bonus plan entitled him to
a full payout. He asserted breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. DHL removed the case
to federal court on diversity grounds. The court allowed a single
cause of action to go to the jury--a "straightforward" breach-of-
contract claim. The jury found for Weiss. DHL's main claim on
appeal is that the court erroneously allowed the jury to
independently determine whether good cause existed for Weiss's
termination because the bonus plan reserved this determination for
a committee of the company. In his cross-appeal, Weiss challenges
the grant of summary judgment to DHL on his Wage Act claim and the
denial of his attorney's fees. We reverse the jury verdict and
affirm the summary judgment order.
I.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In 2004, DHL, an
international express mail services company, acquired Airborne
-2-
Express, a package delivery company operating in the United States.
Weiss, who had been employed at Airborne Express since 1996,
continued his employment at DHL as District Sales Manager for
downtown Boston. He was promoted within a year to the post of
Regional Sales Director in charge of overseeing a number of sales
districts in the Northeast, including Brooklyn, New York. The
following year, DHL named him "Regional Sales Director of the
Year." Weiss was then elevated to the position of Director of
National Accounts in August 2007. He remained in that position
until his termination two years later.
A. The Bonus Plan
In December 2007, DHL informed Weiss that it had selected
him to participate in the company's "Commitment to Success Bonus
Plan" (the "Plan"). Under the Plan, Weiss became eligible for a
$60,000 service-based bonus if he remained with the company through
the end of 2009, and a $20,000 bonus if DHL met its performance
objectives in 2009. The Employment Benefits Committee (the
"Committee") of the company was given broad authority to administer
the Plan:
The Committee shall have full power and discretionary
authority to interpret the Plan, make factual
determinations, and to prescribe, amend and rescind any
rules . . . and to make any other determinations and take
such other actions as the Committee deems necessary or
advisable in carrying out its duties under the Plan. Any
action required of the Committee under the Plan shall be
made in the Committee's sole discretion and not in a
fiduciary capacity and need not be uniform as to
similarly situated individuals. The Committee's
-3-
administration of the Plan, including all such rules and
regulations, interpretations, selections, determinations,
approvals, decisions, delegations, amendments,
terminations and other actions, shall be final,
conclusive and binding on the Company, the Participant,
and any other persons having or claiming an interest
hereunder.
The Committee could delegate its functions to a subcommittee or to
one or more individuals. It also reserved the right to amend or
terminate the Plan.
In October 2008, Weiss received notice that "some
adjustments to the Plan" were made "in order to better reflect our
changing work environment." Under the amended Plan, Weiss was
still eligible to receive $80,000, but no portion of it was tied to
the company's performance. Instead, the entire bonus was now
contingent on continued employment through the end of 2009, with
Weiss's performance remaining "in good standing." The first
installation of $20,000 was payable in January 2009 and the
remaining $60,000 in January 2010. In the event that DHL
terminated him "without cause" and eliminated his position, Weiss
would receive the full payout upon termination. If he voluntarily
left DHL or if terminated for "good cause" prior to the payment
dates, he would be ineligible for the bonus.
DHL paid Weiss the first installment of the bonus in
January 2009. When he was terminated in September 2009, DHL
refused to pay the remaining $60,000 on the basis that his
termination was for good cause.
-4-
B. The Termination
In 2007, while Weiss was still Regional Sales Director,
DHL shifted the Brooklyn district to another Regional Sales
Director, Christopher Cadigan. Following the organizational
change, Cadigan informed Weiss that Sergio Garcia, a sales
representative in Brooklyn, had incorrectly set up rates on a
customer account. Weiss and Cadigan discussed the billing issue
with their boss, Vice President of Sales David Katz, and Garcia's
supervisor, District Sales Manager Michael Gargiles. They agreed
that Cadigan would work with Garcia to fix the issue. Although he
no longer had oversight over Garcia, Weiss was in the Brooklyn area
on other business and offered to speak to him.
At that meeting, which Gargiles also attended, Weiss
warned Garcia that his conduct could result in disciplinary action,
including termination. He also instructed Garcia to work with the
pricing team to correct the billing issue. Weiss followed up with
Katz and Cadigan, informing them of his warning to Garcia. Although
the company handbook for managers provided that verbal warnings
must be documented, Weiss was unaware of the policy. Neither he
nor Gargiles documented the warning to Garcia, nor did they inform
the human resources department of the warning.
Several months later, Cadigan received a customer
complaint regarding one of its competitors receiving "shockingly
low" DHL rates. Cadigan conducted an investigation and found that
-5-
several sales representatives in Brooklyn had extended unauthorized
rates to certain customers by circumventing company procedures. He
reported this to Vice President of Sales Jonathan Routledge
(apparently Katz's successor). Routledge and Cadigan interviewed
a group of six representatives, including Garcia, about using so-
called "rogue" rates. Three representatives resigned rather than
face disciplinary action. As there was no concrete evidence
linking Garcia to the dishonest activities, he only received a
three-day suspension (which the human resources department
apparently rescinded as unauthorized) and then was transferred to
the sales district in Long Island. Weiss, who at this time was
Director of National Accounts, was involved neither in Cadigan's
investigation nor in the decision to discipline Garcia.
The unauthorized practice of selling "rogue" rates
continued in the New York area. In October 2008, the company's
loss prevention department launched an investigation into the
matter and discovered that the scheme had resulted in a
multimillion-dollar loss to DHL in 2008 alone. During the course
of the investigation, Fraud Manager Scott Kamlet interviewed
Cadigan and Routledge and learned about their 2007 investigation of
the very same issue. He then gathered information implicating
Garcia in the unauthorized practice and attempted to interview him.
After Garcia refused to cooperate, Kamlet recommended that he be
terminated. In his recommendation, Kamlet stated that Garcia had
-6-
received a verbal warning from Weiss in 2007 for similar
unauthorized actions and that it was Kamlet's belief that Garcia's
supervisors did not know the extent of Garcia's misconduct at the
time of this warning.
Kamlet's recommendation apparently was not enough for
Garcia to lose his job. In April 2009, Weiss received a customer
complaint alleging that Garcia was asking customers to pay
kickbacks in exchange for receiving preferential shipping rates.
The customer threatened to go public with the information. Weiss
immediately forwarded the complaint to his superiors. A few days
later, Garcia resigned.
DHL responded to the allegation by retaining attorney
Kenneth Thompson to conduct an investigation. In addition to
confirming the kickbacks allegation, Thompson also found that
Garcia and several other representatives in Brooklyn had engaged in
various improper sales practices during the preceding years,
including while Weiss was in charge of the district. Specifically,
Thompson reported that the billing issue that precipitated Weiss's
verbal warning to Garcia involved an unauthorized shipping rate
extension. Thompson informed DHL of Weiss's "management failures"
relating to his oversight of Garcia, including his failure to
properly discipline Garcia in 2007, to document the 2007 verbal
warning, to consult the human resources and security departments
-7-
about the verbal warning, and to further investigate Garcia's
conduct to determine of the scope of the misconduct.
At the conclusion of the investigation, Michael Berger,
Weiss's supervisor at the time, informed Weiss that DHL was
terminating his employment. The termination letter stated that
Weiss was terminated for "just cause" because the results of the
Thompson investigation "present[ed] a picture of significant
management failures" while Weiss was Regional Sales Director in
charge of the Brooklyn district "and thereafter." Berger was
unaware of those failures until the Thompson investigation. When
Weiss asked who made the decision to fire him, Berger told him,
"it's above me."
Upon termination, Weiss did not receive the $60,000 bonus
that he was set to receive in four months. DHL's General Counsel
John Olin, who was the head of the Committee in charge of
administering the Plan, testified that this was because Weiss was
terminated for "good cause," which under the terms of the Plan made
him ineligible for the bonus.
C. The Court Proceedings
Weiss sued DHL over the unpaid bonus, alleging that he
was entitled to payment because his termination was without good
cause.1 He asserted four claims for relief: (1) non-payment of
1
Weiss also sought six-months' severance pay. On appeal, he
does not press any claims related to the severance pay.
-8-
wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, see Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 149, § 148; (2) violation of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (3) detrimental reliance; and (4) unjust
enrichment. The district court granted DHL's motion for summary
judgment on the Wage Act claim, ruling that the bonus was not
"wages" within the meaning of the Act.
After Weiss presented his evidence at trial, the court
announced that only a "straightforward" breach-of-contract claim
would go to the jury.2 The court then directed a verdict in favor
of DHL on the remaining claims. Weiss did not object to the
recasting of his contract claim or the directed verdict, and he
does not challenge either that action or the directed verdict on
appeal.
The court instructed the jury that the key issue was
whether Weiss was terminated without "good cause" because, if so,
DHL breached the Plan by not paying him the bonus. DHL objected on
the ground that the Plan reserved the good cause determination for
the Committee. The court acknowledged that the Plan "has the
language in it" reserving for the Committee decisions "about
2
The parties dispute whether the district court converted the
good faith and fair dealing claim or the detrimental reliance claim
into the breach-of-contract claim. The court indicated at one
point that it was treating Weiss's detrimental reliance claim as a
claim for breach of contract, and it later stated that "subsumed
within the good faith and fair dealing claim is the breach-of-
contract claim." The issue is of no consequence to our disposition
of this appeal.
-9-
performance and the like." But because the Plan uses the words
"good cause," the court explained, it was for the jury to decide
whether the termination was without good cause, regardless of the
Committee's nomenclature. So instructed, the jury found for Weiss.
After the court denied DHL's motion for judgment as a matter of law
without comment, DHL filed this timely appeal.
II.
A. The Breach-of-Contract Claim
DHL maintains that the Plan gives the Committee the sole
and exclusive authority to determine whether good cause existed for
a participant's termination, and that in this instance the
Committee so determined. Accordingly, DHL argues, it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law because there could be no breach of
contract under the undisputed facts. Weiss retorts that it was for
the jury to decide whether Weiss's termination was for good cause
because the Plan is ambiguous as to whether the Committee retained
such authority.
It is unclear from the record whether the district court
agreed that the Plan is ambiguous in this regard. In any event,
the court submitted the good cause determination to the jury and
denied DHL's Rule 50 motions. Our review of a denial of a Rule 50
motion for judgment as a matter of law is de novo. Tapalian v.
Tusino, 377 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004).
-10-
We begin by reviewing long-standing principles of
contract law.3 Interpretation of a contract is ordinarily a
question of law for the court. Seaco Ins. Co. v. Barbosa, 761
N.E.2d 946, 951 (Mass. 2002). "[W]hen several writings evidence a
single contract or comprise constituent parts of a single
transaction, they will be read together." FDIC v. Singh, 977 F.2d
18, 21 (1st Cir. 1992). Absent an ambiguity, the court interprets
a contract "according to its plain terms," Den Norske Bank AS v.
First Nat'l Bank of Bos., 75 F.3d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1996), in a
manner that gives reasonable effect to each of its provisions, J.A.
Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 494 N.E.2d 374, 378 (Mass. 1986).
"A contract is not ambiguous simply because litigants
disagree about its proper interpretation." Singh, 977 F.2d at 22.
Ambiguity arises only if the language "is susceptible of more than
one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to
which meaning is the proper one." S. Union Co. v. Dep't of Pub.
3
Both parties cite Massachusetts law as governing the
interpretation of the Plan, even though the Plan's choice-of-law
provision states that it is to be construed in accordance with
Florida law. "Generally, where the parties ignore choice of law
issues on appeal, we indulge their assumption that a particular
jurisdiction's law applies." New Ponce Shopping Ctr., S.E. v.
Integrand Assurance Co., 86 F.3d 265, 267 (1st Cir. 1996); see
Lluberes v. Uncommon Prods., LLC, 663 F.3d 6, 23 (1st Cir. 2011).
In any event, the result would not vary even if Florida law were
controlling, as we construe the Plan using general principles of
contract law.
-11-
Utils., 941 N.E.2d 633, 640 (Mass. 2011) (internal quotation marks
omitted). There is no ambiguity in the instant contract.
The plain language of the Plan designates the Committee
as the sole arbiter of whether a Plan participant is terminated for
good cause. The original Plan document makes clear that it is for
the Committee to determine bonus eligibility and to construe the
Plan's terms. The Plan specifies that the Committee "shall have
full power and discretionary authority" to make determinations
under the Plan and that its decisions regarding "rules and
regulations, interpretations, selections, determinations,
approvals, decisions, delegations, amendments, terminations and
other actions, shall be final, conclusive and binding." In short,
as the Plan administrator, the Committee was given broad
discretionary authority to determine all matters pertaining to the
Plan, including whether a participant qualified for payment.
The amendment to the Plan neither trumps the Committee's
sweeping authority nor creates an ambiguity in this regard. By its
express terms, the amendment only made "some adjustments" to the
Plan, namely to provide that the bonus was no longer tied to the
company's performance but only to continued service and to permit
a participant terminated without good cause to receive the payout.
The amendment did not purport to modify the Committee's role in any
way. Because the modifications were not "so material and so
extensive" as to establish a substitute contract, the terms of the
-12-
original Plan document that were not expressly modified remain in
effect. Kirkley v. F.H. Roberts Co., 167 N.E. 289, 290 (Mass.
1929); see McKinley Invs., Inc. v. Middleborough Land, LLC, 818
N.E.2d 627, 629 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). Interpreting the original
Plan document and the amendment as a single agreement, as we must,
it becomes plain that the contract is susceptible only to one
plausible construction: whether Weiss was terminated without good
cause and thus remained eligible for the bonus was a decision
within the ambit of the Committee's sole and final decision-making
authority.
Weiss argues that the Plan is ambiguous because the
amendment provides for the good cause determination but is silent
about who decides, whereas the original Plan document addresses the
Committee's decision-making authority but not the good cause
protection. According to Weiss, this "tension" between the two
documents could plausibly suggest that the employer and not the
Committee is to determine whether a participant is terminated for
good cause, in which case the jury could review the employer's
decision. We disagree. The provision designating the Committee as
the sole and final authority on decisions of this type is broad
enough to encompass the good cause determination. And nothing in
the amendment suggests that someone other than the Committee would
make such decisions. Hence, the two documents are not incongruous.
The only plausible construction of the Plan as a whole that gives
-13-
reasonable effect to the provisions in both writings is that the
Committee's decision-making authority extends to this eligibility
determination.
Simply put, under the Plan, the Committee was free to
deny Weiss the bonus if, in its sole judgment, his employment was
terminated for good cause. Cf. Nolan v. CN8, 656 F.3d 71, 82 (1st
Cir. 2011) (Selya, J., concurring) (where the employment agreement
designated the employer as "the sole arbiter of whether the
plaintiff's actions reflected unfavorably on [the employer's]
interests or reputation (and, thus, warranted termination)," the
plaintiff's contractual right to continued employment was
extinguished when the employer exercised its prerogative). Neither
we nor the district court can rewrite the contract to take away the
Committee's discretion and empower the jury to decide whether Weiss
was terminated for good cause.
The only relevant question regarding Weiss's breach-of-
contract claim, then, is whether the Committee determined that
Weiss was terminated for good cause. There is no room to doubt
that it did so.4 Olin, the head of the Committee, testified
4
The district judge acknowledged as much when DHL moved for
judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, stating,
"if I were to give [the contract] language full force and effect,
I'll say this on the record, [DHL] should get judgment as a matter
of law because [its] people have been clear that in their judgment"
there was good cause to terminate Weiss. It is unclear from the
record why the judge decided not to give effect to the contract
language.
-14-
unrebutted that, as permitted under the Plan, the Committee
delegated to DHL's management its authority to determine whether
good cause existed for a Plan participant's termination. DHL's
executives testified, again unrebutted, that they decided to
terminate Weiss because of his management failures in overseeing
Garcia.
That effectively ends the matter. The Committee's
determination that Weiss was terminated for good cause made him
ineligible for the bonus, precluding his breach-of-contract claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment against DHL.5
This outcome is not unfair, as Weiss urges. Weiss was a
handsomely compensated employee in a significant position at DHL.
He accepted the terms of the Plan that gave the Committee
unfettered discretion in matters such as the eligibility decision
at issue here. The preclusion of his breach-of-contract claim,
moreover, does not mean that Weiss had no recourse but to bow his
head and accept the Committee's decision. As Weiss recognized
early in the game, Massachusetts law implies in every contract a
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Ayash v. Dana-Farber
Cancer Inst., 822 N.E.2d 667, 683 (Mass. 2005). A party may breach
5
Given our disposition, we need not address Weiss's claim
that the district court erred in denying his motion for attorney's
fees and expenses. Nor do we reach DHL's alternative arguments
that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict
and that the court's mid-trial claim conversion was unfairly
prejudicial.
-15-
the covenant without breaching any express term of the contract.
See Fortune v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251, 1255-56
(Mass. 1977). In his complaint, Weiss asserted a claim for breach
of the covenant. We pass no judgment on the viability of the
claim, however, because it is not before us. When the district
court discarded the good faith and fair dealing claim, leaving only
a "straightforward" breach-of-contract claim, Weiss did not object.
And he does not argue on appeal that the covenant claim remains.
We therefore have no choice but to conclude that Weiss has
abandoned the claim.6 See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17
(1st Cir. 1990).
B. The Wage Act Claim
In his cross-appeal, Weiss challenges the grant of
summary judgment to DHL on his claim under the Massachusetts Wage
Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148. He assigns error to the
district court's ruling that the bonus at issue did not constitute
"wages" under the Act. We review the grant of a motion for summary
judgment de novo, taking the record evidence in the light most
favorable to Weiss as the nonmoving party and drawing all
reasonable inferences in his favor. Arroyo-Audifred v. Verizon
Wireless, Inc., 527 F.3d 215, 217 (1st Cir. 2008).
6
Even if the district court converted the detrimental
reliance claim and not the covenant claim, the outcome remains the
same. The district court directed a verdict in DHL's favor on all
remaining claims, an order that Weiss does not appeal.
-16-
The Wage Act requires prompt payment of "wages earned" on
pain of civil and criminal penalties, treble damages, and
attorney's fees. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §§ 148, 150. While the
Act makes clear on its face that holiday pay, vacation pay, and
definitely determined commissions fall within its protections, the
term "wages" is not otherwise defined. Id. § 148. In refusing to
adopt a broad definition of wages covered under the Act,
Massachusetts courts speak of the Act's purpose--"to prevent the
unreasonable detention of wages." Bos. Police Patrolmen's Ass'n,
Inc. v. City of Bos., 761 N.E.2d 479, 481 (Mass. 2002); see Weems
v. Citigroup Inc., 900 N.E.2d 89, 94 n.10 (Mass. 2009)
(distinguishing the narrow purpose of the Wage Act from broader
remedial statutes like the state Equal Pay Act, where the term
"wages" has been interpreted as encompassing all potential sources
of pay). In keeping with this narrow purpose, courts have held
that various forms of compensation fall outside of the scope of the
Wage Act. See Weems, 900 N.E.2d at 94 (discretionary stock bonus
contingent on continued employment until vesting period not covered
by the Act); Bos. Police, 761 N.E.2d at 481 (contributions to
deferred compensation plans outside of the scope of the Act);
Prozinski v. Ne. Real Estate Servs., LLC, 797 N.E.2d 415, 419-21
(Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (severance pay not "wages" under the Act).
The Weems decision is particularly instructive. The
certified question before the Supreme Judicial Court was whether a
-17-
bonus paid in form of restricted stock was covered by the Wage Act.
The bonus was discretionary and an employee who received it would
forfeit the award in the event of termination, either voluntary or
for cause, prior to the vesting date. Weems, 900 N.E.2d at 94.
The court seized on the fact that the bonus "was not only
discretionary, but it also had an important contingency attached to
it"--the recipient's continued employment. Id. Thus, those
recipients who left their employ prior to the vesting date were not
deprived of "wages" within the meaning of the Wage Act. See id.
Like the unvested shares of stock in Weems, the bonus in
Weiss's case was contingent on either continued employment, with
his performance remaining in good standing, or the Committee's
determination that his termination was without good cause. The
Committee determined, in its sole discretion, that Weiss was
terminated for good cause prior to the payment date. The bonus was
therefore never "earned" because neither contingency occurred.
Because DHL was under no obligation to pay the bonus, Weiss was not
deprived of wages that he earned. We affirm the grant of summary
judgment in DHL's favor.
III.
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the judgment
for Weiss on the breach-of-contract claim and remand for entry of
judgment in DHL's favor. We affirm the grant of summary judgment
to DHL on the Wage Act claim.
-18-