Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Before
Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
showed
plaintiff-appellant
Shelly
Rando,
pharmacy
that she stole the bottles and asserts that Leonard is liable for
the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations
for forcing her to confess.
We affirm.
I.
A.
Factual History
Since
2002,
Leonard
has
served
as
Regional
Loss
As a Loss
In
have
had
73
bottles,
butalbital, in inventory.
each
containing
100
tablets
of
In
April of 2012, Leonard learned that the same CVS in Concord was
again experiencing growth in butalbital, with 67 bottles, or 6700
tablets, missing.
On
Colleen Robillard told Leonard about the tape and informed her
that a bottle of butalbital was missing.
as well.3
Two days later, on April 23, Leonard interviewed Rando
with another loss prevention manager, Alfie Binns.
Early in the
Rando had also stolen the hydrocodone and the other 138 bottles of
butalbital.
Leonard
Rando also
felt nervous as she did not know who Binns was or why he was there.
Desperate to leave and exhausted by Leonard's constant questions,
Rando finally signed the confession and a promissory note stating
that she had stolen the 138 bottles of butalbital (but not any
stated that she "would have admitted to stealing the crown jewels
to get out of that room."
Once Rando signed the confession, Leonard called the
police and they arrived soon after.
search her home.
of butalbital that Rando had stolen two days before, along with
two empty bottles from a "long, long time ago."
Normandy
did
not
explain
why
Rando
was
being
Rando was
charged with one count of larceny over $250 in the Concord District
Court.
tests over a six-month period as part of the program, and the case
was dismissed.
Procedural History
In May of 2013, Rando filed suit against Leonard and CVS
in
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
-5-
District
of
Her amended
of
emotional
distress,
distress,
intentional
negligent
interference
infliction
with
of
contractual
dismissed
all
of
Rando's
claims
except
The district
her
count
for
A.
Standard of Review
"We
review
an
order
for
summary
judgment
de
novo,
Nieves-Romero
Summary
Analysis
For
the
tort
of
intentional
interference
with
contractual relations,
a plaintiff must prove that (1) he had an
advantageous relationship with a third party . . . ;
(2) the defendant knowingly induced a breaking of
the relationship; (3) the defendant's interference
with the relationship, in addition to being
intentional, was improper in motive or means; and
(4) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant's
actions.
Blackstone v. Cashman, 860 N.E.2d 7, 12-13 (Mass. 2007).
Although
Leonard concedes that Rando can satisfy the first element of the
four-part test through her employment relationship with CVS, she
asserts that Rando cannot make the other three showings.
Rando
fails
to
satisfy
the
third
prong
of
the
Because
test -- that
Id. at 13 (quoting
Gram v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 429 N.E.2d 21, 24 (Mass. 1981)).
-7-
and
appropriate.
the
actual
malice
standard
was
therefore
Id.
as she has waived any argument that Leonard does not qualify as a
"corporate official" and fails to produce evidence that Leonard
acted with actual malice.
In
stated,
in
her
a
opposition
single
before
sentence,
-8-
the
that
district
court,
she
not
did
Rando
believe
Massachusetts
case
law
supported
Leonard's
argument
that
she
On
argument,
that
"[c]orporate
officials'
status
is
See Zimmerman
v. Direct Fed. Credit Union, 262 F.3d 70, 76 (1st Cir. 2001)
("Proof of actual malice requires more than a showing of mere
hostility.").
on
this
point
is
that
Leonard
spoke
Rando's only
to
her
boss,
To
the contrary, Leonard had reason to believe that Rando may have
been the culprit:
shrinkage."
Applying the "actual malice" standard here thus
serves the policy of protecting those involved "in matters related
to the conduct of the internal affairs of a corporation." Id. at
16 n.15.
-10-
does not necessarily mean she was responsible for the other thefts.
Nevertheless,
there
is
no
indication
that
Leonard,
by
Leonard lied to her, but the record evidence does not support this
assertion.
harbored
interactions,
ill
which
will
toward
were
Rando.
limited
to
Indeed,
polite
their
prior
greetings,
were
uneventful.
aggressively
questioned
Rando,
informed
Rando
that
she
faced
not
doubt
encounter.
that
Rando
felt
frightened
and
upset
by
We
this
-12-