## Facts

- Jose Ortega worked for Wakefield Thermal Solutions, Inc. (Wakefield) for about 22 years, worked his way up to a supervisor position, and had no disciplinary record.
- Wakefield issued an employee handbook that contained detailed workplace policies.
- The handbook stated that employees would generally receive advance notice of serious performance problems.
- The handbook also described a progressive discipline policy for misconduct, listing steps such as verbal warning, written warning, and suspension before termination.
- At the same time, the handbook included a written disclaimer stating the handbook’s policies and procedures were not terms and conditions of employment and did not create a contract; Ortega signed an acknowledgment including the disclaimer language.
- The handbook further stated that no employee was hired for a definite term and that Wakefield could terminate employment at any time, with or without notice or cause.
- Ortega took a scheduled vacation in April 2002 and traveled to the Dominican Republic.
- Ortega was scheduled to return to work on April 23, 2002, but returned three days late after missing a flight; he claimed airline personnel told him there were no seats available on his flight and no other flights that day, and that the next available flight was later in the week.
- Ortega called his supervisor, Tony Escobar, to report the travel problem; Ortega claimed Escobar did not say the absence would create a problem and said the company would cover during Ortega’s absence.
- Ortega returned to work on April 26, 2002, and after about an hour was brought to a meeting with a human-resources manager, Mary Michaud.
- Wakefield terminated Ortega immediately. Michaud stated she contacted a travel agent and was told earlier flights were available; Wakefield asserted Ortega was terminated for dishonesty (not merely for returning late).
- Ortega sued Wakefield for wrongful discharge, claiming Wakefield failed to follow its handbook’s notice and progressive-discipline procedures. Wakefield moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Wakefield was entitled to summary judgment where the employee handbook contained both progressive-discipline/notice language and express at-will and noncontractual disclaimers.
2. Whether disputed facts about the reason for termination (lateness versus alleged dishonesty), and the related credibility disputes, required trial rather than summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Superior Court denied Wakefield’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to the effect of the handbook and the parties’ conduct, including whether Wakefield’s policies could be found to limit termination procedures in practice.
- The court also found that disputed facts about Ortega’s travel delay and the employer’s asserted “dishonesty” rationale involved credibility determinations that could not be resolved on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the evidence is viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor.
- In Massachusetts, an employee handbook does not automatically create contractual rights, but detailed policy language and employer practice may support an implied agreement or enforceable expectations in some circumstances.
- A handbook disclaimer and at-will language are strong evidence against contract formation, but they do not automatically end the case when other handbook provisions and surrounding facts could support competing interpretations.
- When the employer’s stated reason for discharge is contested and depends on witness credibility (for example, whether an employee lied about flight availability), those disputes are generally for the factfinder, not for resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court denied Wakefield’s summary-judgment motion because the record presented triable questions about how Wakefield’s handbook policies operated alongside its disclaimers and about whether Ortega was terminated for a legitimate, good-faith reason or based on a disputed claim of dishonesty that required credibility findings at trial.


Ortega v. Wakefield Thermal Solutions, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 337 (2006)