Lynn Kappelman Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

The July 3 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports that "employment lawyers who represent management are applauding an Appeals Court decision for clarifying under what conditions an employer can terminate an employee and whether that laid-off worker is entitled to incentive compensation." The article ("Co, could fire worker for cost-cutting purposes") highlights York v. Zurich Scudder Investments, Inc. in which a cost-cutting move by the investment company was the reason behind the termination of an at-will employee and the court ruled that the termination falls into the definition of good cause.

Boston attorney Lynn A. Kappelman, who represents a major corporation in a case pending before the Appeals Court, told Lawyers Weekly she is encouraged by the court’s decision in York and its potential impact on her client’s case, Barsamian v. Corporate Express, which was argued before the court about a month ago. “Joan Barsamian worked as a salesperson for Corporate Express Office Products and was paid a salary plus commission,” Kappelman said, noting the case is “almost identical” to York. As Scudder did, Corporate Express implemented a restructuring with which Barsamian did not agree. “She ended up leaving,” Kappelman said, “but she claimed she was entitled to four additional years of commission, even after she left, because the company continued to sell to a customer who had a five-year agreement.” Kappelman is admittedly “optimistic” about the outcome of the appeal in the Barsamian case in the wake of York for a couple of reasons: “One, the court found that cost-cutting is a legitimate reason on which to base a termination for cause. And, two, it keeps Fortune [v. National Cash Register Co.] within the narrow scope that the Supreme Judicial Court intended.” She noted that Fortune, cited in the York decision, “created a cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing for at-will employees.” Not only did the Appeals Court decision keep the Fortune ruling narrow, Kappelman concluded,” it allows employers to implement cost-cutting measures when, in the employer’s judgment, these measures are necessary for the needs of the business.”