## Facts

- Joanna Upton, a divorced single parent, worked as an at-will employee for JWP Businessland in Canton, Massachusetts.
- At hiring (April 1991), the employer described her hours as 8:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with working late “one or two days each month,” and Upton arranged child care based on that schedule.
- From the outset, job demands regularly kept her until roughly 6:30–7:00 p.m. or later.
- In late July 1991, the employer informed Upton she would need to work until 9:00–10:00 p.m. each weeknight and all day Saturday for at least several months.
- Upton stated she could not work those extended hours due to her childcare responsibilities.
- About two weeks later, the employer terminated her employment.
- Upton sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and, alternatively, promissory estoppel based on the hiring-stage representations about work hours.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed on direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether terminating an at-will employee for refusing substantially extended hours due to childcare responsibilities violates a clearly established Massachusetts public policy, permitting a wrongful-discharge claim.
2. Whether hiring-stage representations about expected work hours, and the employee’s reliance on them, can support promissory estoppel preventing termination under these circumstances.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
- The court held that firing an at-will employee who refuses extended hours because of childcare responsibilities does not violate a clearly defined public policy recognized under Massachusetts law.
- The court held the estoppel claim failed because the record did not show reasonable, detrimental reliance on an unambiguous promise concerning fixed or unchangeable hours.

## Legal Principles

- At-will employees may be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason, subject to limited exceptions.
- Massachusetts recognizes a narrow public-policy exception, typically limited to discharge for: (a) asserting a legal right, (b) performing a legal duty, or (c) refusing to violate the law.
- General social policies (including broad commitments to child welfare and family support) do not, without a specific legal right or duty, restrict an employer’s at-will termination authority.
- Promissory estoppel requires an unambiguous promise and reasonable, detrimental reliance; generalized or nonbinding statements about anticipated conditions of employment ordinarily do not suffice.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend the public-policy exception to cover termination based on an employee’s inability to work expanded hours due to childcare responsibilities and rejected promissory estoppel because the evidence did not show a clear promise of fixed hours or reasonable detrimental reliance; summary judgment for the employer was affirmed.


Upton v. JWP Businessland, Inc., 425 Mass. 756, 682 N.E.2d 1357 (Mass. 1997)