Indeed it might. But since the above analysis already shows that Staples did not run afoul of SOX, this court need not address the novel legal issue of whether SOX provides a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
IV. CONCLUSION
For reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED as to all four claims and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph L. Tauro
United States District Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [#47], ¶ 4 ("Pl.'s Statement").
2 Id.
3 Id. at ¶ 9.
4 Compl. at ¶ 7.
5 Offer Letter to Kevin Day from Cheryl Louie dated May 6, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex.
A ("Offer Letter").
6 Id.
7 Compl., Ex. C.
8 Offer Letter.
9 Deposition of Kevin Day, Volume II, 192:17-23, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. B. ("Day Dep.
II").
10 Compl. at ¶ 25.
11 Id. at ¶ 17.
12 Id.
13 Associate Handbook, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. D.
14 Id. at Ex. C.
15 Compl. at ¶ 26.
16 Id. at ¶ 28.
17 Id.
18 Id. at ¶¶ 28-30.
19 Deposition of Mary-Ellen Julio, 164:18-21, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. E ("Julio Dep.").
20 Job Description, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. F.
21 Offer Letter.
22 Day Dep. II at 121:1-2.
23 Id. at 167:16-17.
24 Julio Dep. at 33:4-6.
25 Email Exchange between Julio and Day, dated July 5, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. K
("Email Exchange").
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id. at ¶ 123; Day Dep. II, 135:10-17, 136:18-24.
31 Testimony of Kevin Day at the Dep't of Labor, 84:3-22, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. G
("Day DOL Test.").
32 Testimony of Mary-Ellen Julio at the Dep't of Labor, 598:19-25, 599:1-5, Serafyn Aff.
[#44], Ex. H ("Julio DOL Test.").
33 Pl.'s Statement at ¶ 126; Julio DOL Test. at 599:6-7.
34 Day Dep. II, 146:3-5; 147:12.
35 Julio DOL Test. at 599:16-25; 600:1-3.
36 Id. at 599:24-25, 600:1.
37 Id. 600:2-5, 11-17.
38 Id. at 600:25, 601:1-12.
39 Id. at 606: 8-13, 16-18.
40 Pl.'s Statement at ¶ 142.
41 Julio DOL Test. at 607:2-7.
42 Id. at 607:10-15.
43 Id. at 607:8-9.
44 Id. at 608:4-6.
45 Id. at 608:2-3.
46 Kevin Day Performance Evaluation, dated July 14, 2005, Kevin Day Aff. [#51], Ex. U.
47 Id.
48 Letter to Human Resources by Kevin Day, dated July 15, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex.
P. ("Day Letter").
49 Pl.'s Statement at ¶ 164.
50 Id. at ¶ 165.
51 Id. at ¶ 167.
52 Day Letter.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Mary-Ellen Julio Email to Wendy Watanabe & Judith Gutierrez, dated July 18, 2005,
Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. N.
57 Wendy Watanabe Email to Mary-Ellen Julio, dated July 18, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44],
Ex. N ("Watanabe Email").
58 Id.
59 Judith Gutierrez Email to Mary-Ellen Julio, dated July 18, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex.
O.
60 Pl.'s Statement at ¶¶ 178–183.
61 Id. at ¶¶ 193, 195.
62 Id. at ¶ 198.
63 Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts [#42], ¶ 85 ("Def.'s Statement").
64 Id.
65 Id. at ¶ 87.
66 Id. at ¶ 88.
67 Id. at ¶ 88.
68 Id. at ¶ 89.
69 Id. at ¶ 90.
70 Id.
71 Id. at ¶ 91.
72 Robert McGrath Email to Kevin Day, dated July 25, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. Q.
73 Day DOL Test. at 278:23-25, 279:1-3.
74 Day DOL Test. at 261:5-6.
75 Vicki Thomes Email to Mary-Ellen Julio, dated July 27, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex.
R.
76 Def.'s Statement at ¶ 97.
77 Day Dep. II at 280:22-23.
78 Def.'s Statement at ¶ 98.
79 Id. at ¶ 99.
80 Id. at ¶ 101.
81 Id. at ¶¶ 100-1.
82 Id. at ¶ 102.
83 Id. at ¶ 107.
84 Id. at ¶ 108.
85 Id. at ¶ 109.
86 Pl.'s Statement at ¶ 314.
87 Compl. ¶ 75.
88 Findings Letter to Kevin Day from Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, dated November 23, 2005, Serafyn Aff. [#44], Ex. T.
89 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
90 Dasey v. Anderson, 304 F.3d 148, 153 (1st Cir. 2002)
91 See Alliance of Auto. Mfrs. V. Gwadosky, 430 F.3d 30, 34 (1st Cir. 2005) ("like the district court, we must scrutinize the record in the light most favorable to the summary judgment loser and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom to that party's behoof.").
92 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1).
93 This framework was first articulated in Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., 334 F.
Supp. 2d 1365, 1375 (N.D. Ga. 2004). It has been adopted by numerous federal courts. See, e.g., Mozingo v. South Fin. Group, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79712 (D.S.C. June 6, 2007); Fraser v. Fiduciary Trust Co. Int'l, 417 F. Supp. 2d 310, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). See also 29 C.F.R. § 1980.104(b).
94 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (a)(1) (emphasis added).
95 See, e.g., Mahony v. Keyspan Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007); Smith v. Corning, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 2d 244, 248 (W.D.N.Y. 2006); Collins, 334 F. Supp. 2d at 1375.
96 Mahony, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042, at *14; Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., 334 F.Supp. 2d 1365, 1375 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
97 Fraser, 417 F. Supp. 2d 310, 322, citing Lerbs v. Buca Di Beppo, Inc., 2004-SOX-8, 2004 DOLSOX 65, at *33-34 (emphasis in original).
98 Mahony, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042, at *15.
99 Day Letter.
100 Id.
101 Mahony, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22042, at *14.
102 Id. at *2.
103 Id. at *3.
104 Id.
105 See Smith, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 245.
106 Id.
107 See Id. at 248-249.
108 See Id. at 250.
109 Def.'s Statement at ¶ 58.
110 Id. at ¶ 83.
111 Id. ¶¶ 87-88.
112 Id. ¶ 93.
113 Id. ¶ 100.
114 O'Brien v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 664 N.E.2d 843, 847 (Mass. 1996); Jackson v. Action for Boston Cmty. Dev., Inc., 525 N.E.2d 411, 414 (Mass.1988).
115 Hinchey v. NYNEX Corp., 144 F.3d 134, 143 (1st Cir. 1998).
116 Coll v. PB Diagnostics Sys., Inc., 50 F.3d 1115, 1124 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Hall v. Horizon House Microwave, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 84, 93 (1987))(emphasis in original).
117 Upton v. JWP Businessland, 682 N.E.2d 1357, 1360 (Mass. 1997).
118 See Pl.'s Statement at ¶¶ 4, 9.
119 Mem. in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [#46] 11.