Duff v. School Committee
Duff v. School Committee
Opinion of the Court
William Duff and Anthony R. DeMeo, the plaintiffs, were probationary custodians in the Milton public schools. See G. L. c. 31, § 34, as appearing in St. 1978, c. 393, § 11.
The case is controlled by Costa v. Selectmen of Billerica, 377 Mass. 853 (1979). We are of opinion that the reasons for discharge given by the superintendent “identified observed characteristics” of each of the plaintiffs. Id. at 861. While the language of the superintendent’s notice is lamentably bureaucratic in style and suffers from consequent opaqueness, the only plausible message is clear enough: the custodians didn’t get as much done as they should have and what they did was not done well. Moreover they were uncooperative. The letter of dismissal could not have come as a surprise as it stated “[ejvaluations of your performances [sic] have been conveyed to you in previous meetings.” The notices, therefore, touch on the employees’ conduct, their character and the quality of the work performed. Scott v. Manager State Airport, Hanscom Field, 336 Mass. 372, 376 (1957). It is not required of employers that they describe incidents or events of unsatisfactory performance, Costa v. Selectmen of Billerica, 377 Mass. at 861, although doing so would head off the sort of controversy here presented. The judgments are reversed and new judgments shall be entered dismissing both actions.
So ordered.
An amendment to § 34 effected by St. 1981, c. 767, § 18, is not material.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.