Where a plaintiff has asserted a count under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act alleging that the defendant employer interfered with his exercise of his First Amendment rights by threatening to terminate him for expressing his political views, the employer’s motion to dismiss that count should be denied because it is not clear from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff was an at-will employee.

“Plaintiff George Rodrique II brought this lawsuit against defendants Hearst Communications, Inc., and Hearst Stations, Inc. (collectively, Hearst) for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment. …

“Count IV arises under the MCRA, which provides a cause of action for any person whose ‘exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by’ the Constitution, federal law, or state law have been interfered with ‘by threats, intimidation, or coercion.’ … Rodrique asserts that Hearst Stations interfered with his exercise of his First Amendment rights by threatening to terminate him for expressing his political views. Hearst moves to dismiss this claim, arguing that the First Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently plead (1) threats, intimidation, or coercion or (2) interference with any recognized protected interest. …

“As to the first argument, Hearst maintains that, because the only threat, intimidation, or coercion alleged in the First Amended Complaint is the threat of termination, and because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has established as a matter of law that...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiSGh0dHBzOi8vbWFzc2xhd3llcnN3ZWVrbHku...