GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
421 Mass. 22 (1995)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

In-house counsel may maintain a claim for wrongful discharge in limited circumstances where the claim is based on explicit statutory or ethical norms and can be proven without violating the attorney's obligation to preserve client confidences.

Facts:

Stewart was employed as in-house General Counsel for GTE's lighting businesses.
During his employment, Stewart advised management to take costly measures regarding product safety and liability for three specific lighting products.
Stewart insisted that GTE comply with federal regulations regarding hazardous waste disposal, specifically regarding the treatment of light bulbs.
Stewart's supervisor, Trevisan, initially gave him high performance ratings and bonuses.
Trevisan later secretly lowered Stewart's confidential promotability rating.
On August 7, 1991, Trevisan met with Stewart and criticized his 'confrontational' style, warning him to stop being the 'social conscience' of the company.
Believing this meeting indicated he was being squeezed out of the company, Stewart resigned the following day.

Procedural Posture:

GTE sued Stewart in the Superior Court for the return of documents and materials.
Stewart filed counterclaims in the Superior Court alleging wrongful discharge and other torts.
The Superior Court granted GTE's motion for summary judgment on all of Stewart's counterclaims.
Stewart applied for direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does in-house counsel have the right to sue a former employer for wrongful discharge based on the public policy exception, and did the employee in this case present sufficient evidence of constructive discharge to survive summary judgment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Greaney

Yes, in-house counsel may sue for wrongful discharge, but No, Stewart failed to present sufficient evidence that he was constructively discharged. The Court rejected the strict view that in-house counsel can never sue for retaliatory discharge due to the attorney-client relationship. Instead, the Court adopted a limited right to sue, reasoning that the public interest is served when attorneys comply with ethical duties. However, this right is restricted to claims based on explicit statutes or ethical rules that can be proven without disclosing client secrets. Despite establishing this legal right, the Court ruled against Stewart on the facts. To prove constructive discharge, an employee must show working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. A single distressing interview where a supervisor criticizes an employee's style does not meet this high standard.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in legal ethics and employment law because it rejects the 'Illinois Rule' (which bars in-house counsel from suing for wrongful discharge entirely) in favor of the 'California Rule' (which permits such suits under specific constraints). It strikes a balance between protecting the public interest—by ensuring lawyers aren't fired for refusing to violate the law—and preserving the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. Practically, it places a heavy burden on plaintiff-attorneys to prove their case without using privileged information. Additionally, the case clarifies the high bar for 'constructive discharge' in Massachusetts, establishing that mere criticism, negative feedback, or subjective feelings of being 'squeezed out' are insufficient to treat a resignation as a firing.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: GTE Products Corp. v. Stewart (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"