Roselle v. Fitzgerald ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-2224
ALBERT ROSELLE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KEVIN J. FITZGERALD, FITZ-INN AUTO PARKS, INC.,
& BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Damon Scarano on brief for appellant.
John J. McArdle on brief for appellees Kevin J. Fitzgerald and
Fitz-Inn Auto Parks, Inc.
May 8, 1997
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record,
the district court opinion and the parties' briefs. We
summarily affirm the district court judgment essentially for
the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order dated December
8, 1995. We add only the following comments.
Appellant argues that the termination of his employment
violated the state policy which presumes an accused to be
innocent until proven guilty. This presumption, however,
serves to focus a jury on what a prosecutor must establish so
as to obtain a conviction in a criminal case. Commonwealth v.
Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 188, 326 N.E.2d 320, 332 (1975). It has
no applicability in the employment context and, consequently,
does not warrant invocation of the public policy exception to
the employment-at-will rule. See Borschel v. City of Perry,
512 N.W.2d 565, 568 (Iowa 1994)(presumption of innocence
"limited to criminal procedures" and is not "a public policy
applicable in the employment context"); Cisco v. United
Parcel Services, Inc., 328 Pa. Super. 300, 476 A.2d 1340,
1344 (1984) (presumption of innocence applies to trial and is
not "superimposed into an accused's remaining life
experiences"); cf. King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 584
(1994)(statutory right "must relate to or arise from the
employee's status as an employee" to warrant invocation of
public policy exception).
-2-
The district court judgment dated December 11, 1995 is
affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-