Dobin v. CIOview Corp.

Dobin v. CIOview Corp.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Amy Dobin ("Dobin"), in her Third Amended Complaint, has filed suit alleging four causes of action against her former employer, the defendant CIOview Corporation ("CIOview"): (1) failure to pay salary in violation of the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §§ 148 & 150; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) breach of contract for the alleged failure to pay earned commissions; and (4) breach of the implied covenant and good faith for allegedly terminating her to avoid paying her commissions that were about to be earned. Dobin has moved for partial summary judgment on the Wage Act claim, while CIOview has cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the Wage Act claim and the wrongful termination claim.

BACKGROUND

In September 1998, Scott McCready, with two other investors, began CIOview, a company that developed and sold software designed to help large information technology vendors improve their information [*2]  technology purchase decisions. ¹ Initially, McCready was CIOview's sole employee. Later, McCready's wife, Ann Palermo, became its second employee and Dobin became its third.

Before becoming an employee, Dobin had been retained by CIOview as a consultant. McCready offered her a management position overseeing three account relationships and developing best practices for two of CIOview's major customers. ² In a document entitled Job Offer for Amy Dobin, dated September 1, 1999, McCready offered her an annual salary of $ 75,000 per year based on a three-day workweek, as well as monthly commissions. Dobin accepted the terms of employment set forth in that Job Offer and began work as an employee in September 1999. In or about June 2000, her annual salary was increased to $ 95,000, still based on a three-day work week.

 [*3]  Dobin was timely paid her salary for the months of September 1999 through January 2000. According to McCready, in or around February 2000, McCready, Palermo, and Dobin discussed the financial condition of CIOview. McCready testified that they recognized that CIOview, technically, was bankrupt in that it had only enough money to pay its rent, electric, and telephone bills for four to six months, but not enough to pay its three employees. They discussed the possibility of closing the company but the three of them agreed that they would keep the company alive by deferring any salary payments until business improved and the corporation could afford to pay them.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.