
USCA1 Opinion

	




          August 24, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________        No. 94-1486                                JOHN J. DEFAZIO, JR.,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                         DELTA AIR LINES, INC. EDWARD KAHLER,                        EDWARD M. CHEROF, AND W. WHITT HAWKINS                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S.District Judge]                                               __________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            George E. Kersey on brief for appellant.            ________________            Wilfred J.  Benoit Jr. and  Goodwin, Procter &  Hoar on brief  for            ______________________      ________________________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.  We have reviewed  carefully the record, the                 __________            district court opinion, and the parties' briefs in this case.            We summarily  affirm the district  court judgment essentially            for the reasons  stated in its  memorandum of decision  dated            March 29, 1994.  See  1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.  We add only the                             ___            following.                 Even if we assume  that appellant properly raised before            the  district  court  a  claim that  he  had  been wrongfully            terminated  in violation  of  a state  public policy  against            dismissal of an  employee who  has only been  charged with  a            crime, we  find no merit in  the claim.  The  general rule in            Massachusetts is that "[e]mployment  at will is terminable by            either  the  employee or  the  employer  without notice,  for            almost  any reason  or for  no reason  at all."   Jackson  v.                                                              _______            Action for  Boston Community Development, Inc.,  403 Mass. 8,            _____________________________________________            9,  525 N.E.2d 411, 412  (1988).  Although  a "public policy"            exception  to the  employment  at will  doctrine exists,  the            exception is  "interpreted . . . narrowly," King v. Driscoll,                                                        ____    ________            1994  Mass. LEXIS  474,  at 11  (Mass.  Aug. 11,  1994),  and            requires  a showing  that the  dismissal violated  a "clearly            established public policy," id. at 10.                                         __                 Appellant asserts that his dismissal  violated the state            policy which presumes an accused  to be innocent until proven            guilty.  This presumption, however, serves to focus a jury on            what a prosecutor must establish so as to obtain a conviction            in a criminal  case.   Commonwealth v. Boyd,  367 Mass.  169,                 ________          ____________    ____            188, 326  N.E.2d 320, 332 (1975) (emphasis added).  It has no            applicability  in the  employment context  and, consequently,            does not  warrant invocation of the  public policy exception.            See  Borschel v.  City of  Perry, 512  N.W.2d 565,  568 (Iowa            ___  ________     ______________            1994)   (presumption  of   innocence  "limited   to  criminal            procedures" and  is not  "a public  policy applicable in  the            employment context"); Cisco v. United  Parcel Services, Inc.,                                  _____    ____________________________            328 Pa. Super. 300,  476 A.2d 1340, 1344 (1984)  (presumption            of innocence applies to  trial and is not  "superimposed into            an accused's  remaining life  experiences");  see also  King,                                                          ___ ____  ____            supra, at 15 (statutory  right "must relate to or  arise from            _____            the employee's  status as an employee"  to warrant invocation            of public policy exception).  Furthermore,           although            Massachusetts does not appear  to have directly addressed the            question of whether a  dismissal of an employee on  the basis            of a mere accusation  is a violation of public  policy, other            states  which have  addressed similar  claims have  held that            such a dismissal is  not a violation of  public policy.   See                                                                      ___            Beery v. Maryland  Medical Laboratory, Inc., 89 Md.  App. 81,            _____    _________________________________            597 A.2d 516,  523 (1991) (firing based  on fellow employee's            unsubstantiated  allegations does  not "contravene  any clear            mandate of  public policy"), cert.  denied, 325 Md.  329, 600                                         ____   ______            A.2d 850  (1992); Cisco 476  A.2d at  1344 (rejecting  public                              _____            policy   claim  based   upon  dismissal   following  criminal                                         -3-            accusation); Borschel, 512 N.W.2d (discharge after accusation                         ________            of  sexual abuse  not violation  of public  policy).   We are            aware  of nothing  which  suggests that  Massachusetts  would            decide otherwise.                   Appellee's  request   for  sanctions  is  denied.    The                                                           ______            judgment of the district court is affirmed.                                              ________                                         -4-
