Upton v. JWP Businessland
Nature of the Case
This lawsuit involved an appeal from an entry of summary judgment.
Facts
Upton (P) was the mother of a young son whom she cared for and supported entirely from her earnings. Upton commuted to work with JWP Business Land (D) from Cape Cod to Canton. When she was hired in 1991 she was told her work hours would be from 8:15-5:30 with a need to work late one or two days each month. Upton soon discovered that the requirements of her job kept her there until 6:30 to 7:00 daily. This time began to creep later and later as job progressed. Eventually Upton was told she would have to work until 9:00 or 10:00 each evening and all day Saturday for at least several months. Upton told JWP she could not work such hours because of her son and she was discharged two weeks later.
Issue
- Does public policy demand that a single working parent be granted special consideration from being discharged from her job?
Holding and Rule of Law
- No. Public policy does not demand that a single working parent be granted special consideration from being discharged from her job.
The general rule is that an at will employee may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. However, liability may be imposed upon an employer if an at will employee is terminated for a reason that clearly violates public policy.
There is no clearly established public policy which requires employers to refrain from demanding that their adult employees work long hours and no public policy is served by an employee’s refusal to work long hours. With no public policy component, this case must be treated just like every other at will discharge of an employee.
Upton claims that her termination violated public policy because the Commonwealth has a strong policy favoring the care and protection of children. She argues that meeting JWP’s demands would cause her to neglect her child in contravention of public policy. We find no support that public policy is offended due to an irreconcilable conflict between a new work schedule and parenting obligations. There is no public policy that an employer must accommodate its employee’s individual domestic circumstances.
Upton also argues that JWP should be estopped from firing her because of detrimental reliance. She contends that she relied on JWP’s statements regarding work hours. However, in order to prevail Upton must show reasonable reliance on an unambiguous promise. There is no such promise shown on the record.
Disposition
Affirmed.