Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors Amer, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors Amer, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mason-v-telefunken-semiconductors-amer-1st-cir-2015 1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1962

THOMAS R. MASON,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

TELEFUNKEN SEMI CONDUCTORS AMERI CA, LLC,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. J oseph N. Lapl ant e, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Howard, Chi ef J udge,Sel ya and Lynch, Ci r cui t J udges.

Kennet h J . Bar nes, wi t h whomLaw Of f i ce of Kennet h J . Bar nes,Anne M. Ri ce, and Ri ce Law Of f i ce PLLC wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ant .

I r vi n D. Gor don, wi t h whom Sul l oway & Hol l i s, P. L. L. C. was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 29, 2015



- 2 -

SELYA , Circuit Judge. Thi s case i nvol ves a ser i es of

shi f t i ng empl oyment ar r angement s. Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant Thomas R.

Mason asser t s t hat def endant - appel l ee TSI Semi conduct ors Amer i ca,

LLC ( TSA) , f ormer l y known as Tel ef unken Semi conduct ors Amer i ca,

LLC, abr i dged hi s cont r act ual r i ght s wi t h r espect t o no f ewer t han

t hree of t hese ar r angement s. At t he summary j udgment st age, t he

di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Mason had f ai l ed t o make out a

genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n any of hi s

cl ai ms. Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we r ever se i n par t , af f i r m

i n par t , and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

I. BACKGROUND

I n 2009, Mason began work i n a seni or engi neer i ng

posi t i on f or Tej as Si l i con, I nc. ( Tej as) , a Cal i f or ni a- based

corporat i on wi t h an of f i ce i n New Hampshi r e. The t er ms of Mason' s

empl oyment were del i neat ed i n a wr i t t en agr eement ( t he Agreement )

t hat t ook ef f ect on Apr i l 1, 2009. The Agr eement cont ai ned a

sect i on ent i t l ed "Consequences of Ter mi nat i on of Empl oyment . "

Par t of t hi s sect i on per mi t t ed Tej as t o t er mi nat e Mason' s

empl oyment wi t hout cause upon 60 days' wr i t t en not i ce, i n whi ch

event Mason woul d be ent i t l ed t o cont i nued sal ary payment s and

benef i t s f or one year . I f , however , t he t er mi nat i on was "due t o



- 3 -

t he acqui si t i on, mer ger , or buyout by anot her ent i t y, " t hen Mason' s

sever ance pay and benef i t s woul d cont i nue f or t wo years. 2

The Agreement st i pul at ed t hat Mason' s empl oyment was f or

a f i xed ter m ( one year ) , whi ch woul d renew aut omat i cal l y on each

anni ver sary of t he Agr eement ' s ef f ect i ve dat e unl ess ei t her par t y

el ect ed not t o r enew. An el ect i on not t o r enew coul d be made by

pr ovi di ng wr i t t en not i ce no f ewer t han 30 days pr i or t o t he

anni ver sary dat e.

Mason' s empl oyment wi t h Tej as cont i nued unevent f ul l y f or

t wo year s, and t he Agr eement r enewed aut omat i cal l y on Apr i l 1,

2010 and Apr i l 1, 2011. The l andscape changed, t hough, i n December

of 2011 when Mason l earned of an i mpendi ng cor por at e

r est r uct ur i ng. 3 As Mason under st ood i t , Tej as woul d t er mi nate hi s

empl oyment and TSA woul d of f er hi m new empl oyment . Soon

t her eaf t er , TSA wr ote t o Mason and of f er ed hi m empl oyment i n hi s

t hen- cur r ent posi t i on at hi s t hen- cur r ent sal ar y, begi nni ng

J anuar y 1, 2012 ( t he Of f er Let t er ) .

2 The Agr eement ent i t l ed Mason, i n cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, t oi mmedi ate vest i ng of st ock opt i ons as part of a sever ance package.Because t hi s appeal i s not concerned wi t h t he quant um of damages( i f any) t o whi ch Mason may be ent i t l ed, we make no f ur t herr ef er ence t o t he st ock opt i on pr ovi si ons.

3 The par t i es di sput e t he nat ur e of t he cor por at e event t hatul t i mat el y t r anspi r ed. TSA mai nt ai ns t hat Tej as cont i nues t o exi stas a separate and i ndependent ent i t y; Mason mai nt ai ns t hat Tej aswas mer ged i nt o TSA. Our di sposi t i on of t hi s appeal does notr equi r e us t o r esol ve t hi s di sput e, and we shal l r ef er t o t hi sevent neut r al l y as t he "2011 r eor gani zat i on. "



- 4 -

Mason deci ded t o accept empl oyment wi t h TSA and, i n

December of 2011, si gned f our document s: a document ent i t l ed

"Amendment t o Empl oyment Agreement " ( t he Amendment ) ; t he Of f er

Let t er ; a document ent i t l ed "Empl oyment , Conf i dent i al I nf or mat i on

and I nvent i on Assi gnment Agreement " ( t he New Agreement ) ; and a

document ent i t l ed "Empl oyee Tr ansf er Agreement and General

Rel ease" ( t he Rel ease) . By i t s t erms, t he Amendment was t o t ake

ef f ect on J anuar y 1, 2012. Mason, Tej as, and TSA al l si gned i t ,

t hus memor i al i zi ng t hei r mut ual i nt ent t o amend t he Agr eement .

The Amendment went on t o st at e t hat , "ef f ect i ve as of

J anuar y 1, 2012, " each r ef er ence t o Tej as i n t he Agreement woul d

be repl aced by a r ef er ence t o TSA; t hat Tej as woul d " t r ansf er and

assi gn t o [ TSA] t he Agr eement and al l of i t s r i ght s, dut i es and

obl i gat i ons t her eunder " ; and t hat TSA woul d assume t hose r i ght s,

dut i es, and obl i gat i ons. I t al so pr ovi ded t hat " t he Agr eement

shal l cont i nue under [ Mason' s] empl oyment r el at i onshi p wi t h

[ TSA] . "

The Of f er Let t er , t hough, provi ded t hat Mason' s

empl oyment wi t h TSA woul d be "f or no speci f i ed per i od of t i me" and

woul d be "an at - wi l l empl oyment r el at i onshi p, " under whi ch ei t her

Mason or TSA coul d " t er mi nat e t he r el at i onshi p at any t i me, f or

any r eason, wi t h or wi t hout cause. " Appar ent l y i n r esponse t o

t hi s l anguage, Mason wr ot e ( i n t he si gnat ur e bl ock of t he Of f er



- 5 -

Let t er ) t he words "As Amended (At t ached) " and annexed a copy of

t he Amendment .

The New Agreement cont ai ned, i n capi t al l et t er s, Mason' s

acknowl edgment " t hat , except as set f or t h i n any ot her wr i t t en

agr eement bet ween me and t he company, my empl oyment wi t h t he

company const i t ut es ' at - wi l l ' empl oyment . " Mason execut ed t hi s

document wi t hout any qual i f i cat i on.

To compl et e t he pi ct ure, t he Rel ease provi ded t hat , i n

exchange f or $1000 and t he of f er of new empl oyment by TSA, Mason

woul d "ABSOLUTELY AND I RREVOCABLY AND UNCONDI TI ONALLY" r el ease TSA

f r om"any and al l cl ai ms" agai nst TSA or i t s "[ r ] el at ed [ p] ar t i es, "

i ncl udi ng cl ai ms ar i si ng "as a resul t of [ hi s] empl oyment wi t h and

separat i on f r om empl oyment " as of December 31, 2011. Here agai n,

Mason added a hol ogr aphi c coda, st at i ng cr ypt i cal l y "EXCEPT AS

AMENDED I N ' AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. ' "

I n J anuary of 2012, Mason began t oi l i ng f or TSA. Two

mont hs l at er — on Febr uary 29 —TSA sent hi m an e- mai l announci ng

t hat t he Agr eement "wi l l not be ext ended f or an addi t i onal one-

year per i od and wi l l aut omat i cal l y expi r e Apr i l 1, 2012. " The e-

mai l pr oposed t hat , shoul d t he par t i es "agr ee t o cont i nue t he

empl oyment r el at i onshi p on and af t er Apr i l 1, 2012, t hen t he

empl oyment r el at i onshi p shal l be i n accor dance wi t h" t he Of f er

Let t er and t he New Agreement .





- 7 -

t r i gger ed t he dut y t o pay sever ance. The di st r i ct cour t ent er ed

summary j udgment i n f avor of TSA upon concl udi ng t hat on a pl ai n

r eadi ng of t he r el evant cont r act ual pr ovi si ons, none of t hese

event s const i t ut ed a t ermi nat i on under t he Agreement . See Mason

v. Tel ef unken Semi conduct or s Am. , LLC, No. 12- 507, 2014 WL 3962470,

at *8 ( D. N. H. Aug. 13, 2014) . Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. ANALYSIS

We r evi ew a deci si on to grant or deny summar y j udgment

de novo. See Bi sbano v. St r i ne Pr i nt i ng Co. , 737 F. 3d 104, 107

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Aver y v. Hughes, 661 F. 3d 690, 693 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . I n t hi s i nst ance, Mason appeal s onl y t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

ent r y of summary j udgment i n f avor of TSA, not t he cour t ' s deni al

of hi s own mot i on f or summary j udgment . Hence, we t ake t he f act s

and t he r easonabl e i nf er ences ext r act abl e t her ef r om i n t he l i ght

most f avorabl e t o Mason. See Tor r es Vargas v. Sant i ago Cummi ngs,

149 F. 3d 29, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . We wi l l af f i r m onl y i f we ar e

sat i sf i ed t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act and TSA

i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. See Vi neber g v.

Bi ssonnet t e, 548 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Such an af f i r mance

may r est on any gr ound made mani f est by t he r ecord. See Houl t on

Ci t i zens' Coal . v. Town of Houl t on, 175 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 1st Ci r .

1999) .

Si nce t hi s i s a di ver si t y case, we l ook t o f eder al l aw

f or t he summary j udgment f r amework and to st at e l aw f or t he



- 8 -

subst ant i ve r ul es of deci si on. See Hanna v. Pl umer , 380 U. S. 460,

473 ( 1965) ; Ar t uso v. Ver t ex Phar m. , I nc. , 637 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . The par t i es have st i pul at ed t hat Cal i f or ni a i s t he

wel l spr i ng of t he r el evant st at e l aw, and t hat st i pul at i on j i bes

wi t h the choi ce- of - l aw pr ovi si ons cont ai ned i n the Agr eement and

t he Amendment . Consequent l y, we accept t hi s st i pul at i on at f ace

val ue wi t hout per f or mi ng a f ul l - bl own choi ce- of - l aw anal ysi s. See

But l er v. Bal ol i a, 736 F. 3d 609, 612 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Ar t uso, 637

F. 3d at 5.

Thi s appeal necessar i l y r i ses or f al l s wi t h t he breach

of cont r act cl ai ms. I n cont r act di sput es, t he cour t may const r ue

cl ear and unambi guous cont r act t erms as a mat t er of l aw. See

Tor r es Var gas, 149 F. 3d at 33. I f , however , ambi gui t y l urks, an

exami nat i on of ext r i nsi c evi dence "becomes essent i al . " I d.

Cal i f or ni a f ol l ows t he f ami l i ar r ul e t hat an ambi gui t y

ar i ses i f , when vi ewed i n cont ext , a cont r act t er m i s equal l y

suscept i bl e t o more t han one r easonabl e meani ng. See Dore v.

Ar nol d Wor l dwi de, I nc. , 139 P. 3d 56, 60 ( Cal . 2006) ; Tr ansamer i ca

I ns. Co. v. Super i or Cour t , 35 Cal . Rpt r . 2d 259, 264 ( Cal . Ct .

App. 1994) . Whet her a cont r act t er m i s ambi guous i s i t sel f a

quest i on of l aw. See Bl acki e v. Mai ne, 75 F. 3d 716, 721 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) ; Al l en v. Adage, I nc. , 967 F. 2d 695, 698 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, a ser i es of quest i ons must be

asked concer ni ng each of Mason' s br each of cont r act cl ai ms. To



- 9 -

begi n, an i nqui r i ng cour t must ask whet her t he di sposi t i ve cont r act

l anguage i s suscept i bl e t o more t han one reasonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on. See Tor r es Var gas, 149 F. 3d at 33. I f not , t he

cour t may pr oceed t o const r ue t he l anguage and di spose of t he

summary j udgment mot i on accor di ngl y. See Newpor t Pl aza Assocs. v.

Dur f ee At t l ebor o Bank ( I n re Newpor t Pl aza Assocs. ) , 985 F. 2d 640,

644 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . But i f t her e i s mor e t han one r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on, t he cour t must t hen ask whet her t he ext r i nsi c

evi dence r eveal s a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act r egar di ng t he

meani ng of t he ambi guous l anguage. See Al l en, 967 F. 2d at 698.

I f t he ext r i nsi c evi dence i s " so one- si ded t hat no reasonabl e

per son coul d deci de t he cont r ary, " t he meani ng of t he l anguage

becomes evi dent and t he er st whi l e ambi gui t y wi l l not pr ecl ude

summary j udgment . Bos. Fi ve Cent s Sav. Bank v. Sec' y of Dep' t of

HUD, 768 F. 2d 5, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) . But i f t he ext r i nsi c evi dence

bear i ng on t he meani ng of t he r el evant l anguage i s " cont est ed or

cont r adi ct or y, " summar y j udgment wi l l not l i e. Al l en, 967 F. 2d at

698 n. 3.

Wi t h t hi s f r amework i n pl ace, we tur n to Mason' s breach

of cont r act cl ai ms. We addr ess t he pur por t ed t er mi nat i on event s

sequent i al l y.

A. The December 2011 Reorganization.

Mason' s f l agshi p cl ai m i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment on hi s breach of cont r act cl ai m



- 10 -

ar i si ng out of t he 2011 r eor gani zat i on and t he concomi t ant

cessat i on of hi s empl oyment wi t h Tej as. He argues t hat t he

r el evant cont r act ual pr ovi si ons are ambi guous and t hat a genui ne

i ssue of mat er i al f act exi st s r egar di ng t he cont r act i ng par t i es'

under st andi ng of t he Agr eement ' s t er mi nat i on cl ause.

Termi nat i on i s not def i ned i n t he Agreement , and t he

dr af t er s obvi ousl y used t he word i n more t han one sense. At

var i ous pl aces, t he t er mi nat i on cl ause r ef er s t o t er mi nat i on "of

empl oyment " gener al l y, t er mi nat i on of " [ t he empl oyee' s]

empl oyment " speci f i cal l y, and t er mi nat i on of "empl oyment wi t h t he

Company. " Mason i nsi st s t hat one r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of t he

Agr eement i s t hat t he par t i es i nt ended f or t er mi nat i on t o have t he

r el at i vel y narr ow meani ng of t er mi nat i on of empl oyment wi t h Tej as.

He suggest s t hat const r ui ng a t er mi nat i on cl ause t o r equi r e

sever ance payment s r egar dl ess of new empl oyment compor t s wi t h the

nor m f or compani es i n Tej as' s i ndust r y and wi t h ot her sur r oundi ng

l anguage i n t he Agreement .

TSA demurs. I t ar gues t hat t he pl ai n meani ng of

" t er mi nat e" i s t o "di scont i nue" or "sever , " and t hat Mason' s

empl oyment was nei t her di scont i nued nor sever ed but , r ather ,

t r ansf err ed seaml essl y f r omTej as t o TSA. Thus, Mason' s empl oyment

coul d not have "t ermi nat ed" because he was never wi t hout a j ob. 4

4 Ther e i s some i nher ent t ensi on i n TSA' s posi t i on. On t heone hand, i t ar gues t hat i t i s not a successor ent i t y t o Tej as and



- 11 -

" [ W] ords are l i ke chamel eons; t hey f r equent l y have

di f f er ent shades of meani ng dependi ng upon t he ci r cumst ances. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Romai n, 393 F. 3d 63, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Thi s

adage i s r el evant because t he t er mi nat i on cl ause i n the Agr eement

i s i mpr eci se and, as such, i s suscept i bl e t o ei t her of t he

compet i ng i nt er pr et at i ons ur ged by t he l i t i gant s. Af t er al l , t he

Agr eement uses t he wor d " t er mi nat i on" l oosel y, i n r ef er ence t o

" t er mi nat i on of empl oyment , " t er mi nat i on of " [ t he empl oyee' s]

empl oyment , " and t ermi nat i on of empl oyment "wi t h t he Company. "

Then, t oo, wi t h r espect t o t he cont i nuat i on of benef i t s, t he

cont r act i ng par t i es appear t o have cont empl at ed t he possi bi l i t y of

new empl oyment f ol l owi ng t ermi nat i on, yet t hey di d not make cl ear

how t hat new empl oyment woul d rel at e t o sever ance benef i t s.

Fi nal l y, t he Agr eement cont empl at es t he possi bi l i t y of t er mi nat i on

due t o "acqui si t i on, mer ger , or buyout " but does not expr essl y

precl ude severance payment s even i n t he event of empl oyment by t he

successor ent i t y.

I n our est i mat i on, TSA' s i nvocat i on of di ct i onar y

def i ni t i ons does not assi st i t s cause. Even i f we assume t hat

t he l anguage of t he Rel ease ( whi ch TSA dr af t ed) i ndi cat es t hat i tsought t o hi r e Tej as empl oyees f r ee and cl ear of obl i gat i ons owedby Tej as. On t he ot her hand, TSA ar gues t hat Mason' s empl oymentwi t h Tej as t r ansf er r ed seaml essl y f r om Tej as t o TSA wi t hout anyt ermi nat i on of Mason' s empl oyment . "Havi ng one' s cake and eat i ngi t , t oo, i s not i n f ashi on i n t hi s ci rcui t , " Uni t ed St at es v. Ti er ney, 760 F. 2d 382, 388 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) , and we ar e skept i calt hat TSA can have i t bot h ways.



- 12 -

" t er mi nat e" means "di scont i nue" or "sever , " as TSA i nsi st s,

Mason' s empl oyment wi t h Tej as coul d r easonabl y be f ound t o have

been di scont i nued or sever ed r egar dl ess of any " t r ansf er " t o TSA.

Moreover , our doubt s about t he meani ng of " t ermi nat e" must be

wei ghed i n l i ght of a l egal r egi me pr escr i bi ng that "unempl oyment

i s not a pr er equi si t e t o t he r i ght t o separ at i on pay. " Chapi n v.

Fai r chi l d Camer a & I nst r um. Cor p. , 107 Cal . Rpt r . 111, 115 ( Cal .

Ct . App. 1973) . Rat her , such a r i ght "may, and f r equent l y does,

exi st wher e t her e i s no i nt er r upt i on what ever i n t he cont i nui t y of

empl oyment . " I d.

The upshot i s t hat t he Agreement f ai l s t o make cl ear

whet her t he cont r act i ng par t i es i nt ended t hat a t er mi nat i on

suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger t he payment of sever ance benef i t s coul d occur

even i n t he event of i mmedi at e r eempl oyment by anot her ent i t y as

part of a company- t o- company t r ansact i on. Consequent l y, t he

t er mi nat i on cl ause i s ambi guous as a mat t er of l aw.

The quest i on, t hen, r educes t o whether t he ext r i nsi c

evi dence r el at i ng t o t he meani ng of t he cl ause i s so concl usi ve

t hat i t di spel s t he ambi gui t y. See Tor r es Var gas, 149 F. 3d at 33;

Bos. Fi ve Cent s, 768 F. 2d at 8. I n ascer t ai ni ng t he meani ng of a

cont r act t er m, evi dence of t he cont r act i ng par t i es' i nt ent at t he

t i me of cont r act f or mat i on i s most s i gni f i cant . See Peopl e ex

r el . Lockyer v. R. J . Reynol ds Tobacco Co. , 132 Cal . Rpt r . 2d 151,

158 ( Cal . Ct . App. 2003) . Thi s pr i nci pl e appl i es even wher e, as



- 13 -

her e, one of t he l i t i gant s was not a si gnat or y t o t he Agr eement :

under Cal i f or ni a l aw, a successor i n i nt er est t o a cont r act who

has not r enegot i ated t he t er ms of t he cont r act i s bound by t he

meani ng assi gned t o i t s t er ms by t he or i gi nal par t i es. See Appl er a

Cor p. v. MP Bi omeds. , LLC, 93 Cal . Rpt r . 3d 178, 196 ( Cal . Ct .

App. 2009) ; Spect or v. Nat ' l Pi ct ur es Cor p. , 20 Cal . Rpt r . 307,

312 ( Cal . Ct . App. 1962) . TSA i s t her ef ore bound by t he shar ed

i nt ent of t he cont r act i ng part i es t o t he Agr eement ( Mason and

Tej as) . 5 See Spect or , 20 Cal . Rpt r . at 312. Of cour se, post -

f ormat i on, pr e- di sput e conduct al so may bear on t he meani ng of a

cont r act ' s t er ms. Under Cal i f or ni a l aw, evi dence of such conduct

may be r el evant i n ascer t ai ni ng t he cont r act i ng par t i es' shar ed

under st andi ng of a cont r act ' s or i gi nal meani ng. See Oceansi de 84,

Lt d. v. Fi d. Fed. Bank, 66 Cal . Rpt r . 2d 487, 492- 93 ( Cal . Ct .

App. 1997) .

Her e t he r ecor d i s l ar gel y devoi d of any ext r i nsi c

evi dence showi ng a shared under st andi ng bet ween Mason and Tej as

about t he meani ng of " t er mi nat i on" as t hat t er m i s used i n t he

Agr eement . What ext r i nsi c evi dence exi st s i s not so one- si ded as

t o cur e t he ambi gui t y and compel a f i ndi ng agai nst Mason. For

5 We not e t hat t he Amendment di d not al t er any of t hesubst ant i ve t er ms of t he Agr eement . I t mer el y memor i al i zed t hepar t i es' under st andi ng that TSA woul d assume Tej as' s r i ght s anddut i es under t he Agr eement and ef f ect uat ed t hat assumpt i on bysubst i t ut i ng TSA f or Tej as i n t he Agr eement ' s t ext .



- 14 -

exampl e, t her e i s conf l i ct i ng evi dence anent t he nat ur e of t he

2011 r eor gani zat i on and whet her t he cont r act i ng par t i es t hought at

t he t i me of t he r eorgani zat i on t hat Mason' s empl oyment wi t h Tej as

was bei ng t ermi nat ed wi t hout cause.

The post - f or mat i on evi dence on whi ch TSA r el i es

( pr i nci pal l y, Mason' s f ai l ur e t o seek sever ance payment s dur i ng

t he f i r st t wo mont hs of hi s empl oyment wi t h TSA) i s subj ect t o

var yi ng i nt er pr et at i ons. Fur t her mor e, one of Mason' s swor n

st atement s aver s t hat he and Tej as' s presi dent ( who si gned t he

Agr eement on Tej as' s behal f ) under st ood t he 2011 r eorgani zat i on t o

const i t ut e a ter mi nat i on under t he Agr eement , r egar dl ess of

whet her Mason deci ded to cast hi s l ot wi t h the successor f i r m. 6

As post - f ormat i on, pr e- di sput e evi dence, t he Amendment

i t sel f ( al t hough si gned by Mason, Tej as, and TSA) t el l s us ver y

l i t t l e. I t s pr eambl e st at es t hat "as par t of [ a] cor por at e

consol i dat i on and r eor gani zat i on, Tej as wi l l be mer ged i nt o and

wi t h [ TSA] or wi l l be di ssol ved as a cor por at e ent i t y af t er J anuar y

1, 2012, and [ Mason] wi l l become empl oyed by [ TSA] as of J anuar y

1, 2012. " Wi t hal , t he Amendment i s tot al l y si l ent as to t he

6 We not e t hat Mason al so r el i es upon t he sworn st at ement oft he f ormer Tej as presi dent as evi dence t hat Tej as t er mi nat edMason' s empl oyment wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Agreement . As t headmi ssi bi l i t y of t hi s af f i davi t was cont r over t ed i n t he cour tbel ow, we gi ve i t no wei ght i n our anal ysi s. Si mi l ar l y, we l eaveopen t he r el evance of a document composed by TSA as par t of t he2011 r eor gani zat i on ( col l oqui al l y known as " Exhi bi t A") .



- 15 -

mechani cs of how Mason woul d cease t o work f or Tej as and st ar t t o

wor k f or TSA. I t i s equal l y si l ent as t o t he i mpl i cat i ons of t hose

act i ons, i ncl udi ng whet her Mason was ent i t l ed to sever ance

benef i t s as a r esul t .

The shor t of i t i s t hat ascer t ai ni ng t he meani ng of t he

t er mi nat i on cl ause i n t he cont ext of t he 2011 r eor gani zat i on hi nges

l ar gel y on t he credi bi l i t y of Mason' s cl ai ms as t o t he cont r act i ng

par t i es' shar ed i nt ent and t he i nf er ences t o be dr awn f r om t he

ci r cumst ances surr oundi ng t he si gni ng of t he Amendment and t he

par t i es' conduct . Such mat t er s ar e open t o r easonabl e di sput e

and, t her ef or e, ar e not t he st uf f of summar y j udgment . Rat her ,

t hey ar e squar el y wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he f act f i nder . See,

e. g. , Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 255 ( 1986) ;

Mandel v. Bos. Phoeni x, I nc. , 456 F. 3d 198, 206 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

TSA has a f al l back posi t i on. I t ar gues t hat even i f

Mason' s empl oyment wi t h Tej as was t ermi nat ed i n December of 2011,

t he Rel ease oper at ed t o absol ve TSA of any l i abi l i t y f or sever ance

benef i t s owed t o Mason. Thi s ar gument l acks f orce.

By i t s t er ms, t he Rel ease di schar ged TSA f r om "any and

al l cl ai ms" t hat Mason may have had, i ncl udi ng any cl ai ms r esul t i ng

f r om hi s separ at i on f r om empl oyment ef f ect i ve December 31, 2011.

TSA posi t s t hat t hi s i nst r ument ext i ngui shed any cl ai m t hat Mason

may have had agai nst TSA f or sever ance benef i t s as a r esul t of t he

t er mi nat i on of hi s Tej as empl oyment . Al t hough t hi s ar gument has



- 16 -

a cer t ai n super f i ci al appeal , i t f ai l s t o t ake i nt o account Mason' s

handwr i t t en coda to t he Rel ease, whi ch st at ed "EXCEPT AS AMENDED

I N ' AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. ' " Accor di ng t o one of

Mason' s sworn st at ement s, t hi s coda was i nt ended t o exempt f r om

t he Rel ease any sever ance obl i gat i ons Tej as owed t o hi m under t he

Agr eement — and i t s wor di ng i s r easonabl y suscept i bl e t o t hat

i nt er pr et at i on. And i f t hose obl i gat i ons wer e exempt ed f r om t he

Rel ease — a mat t er on whi ch we t ake no vi ew — TSA mi ght have

assumed t hem by oper at i on of t he Amendment .

To sum up, t he handwr i t t en coda, t hough not compel l i ng

Mason' s const r uct i on, r ender s t he Rel ease suscept i bl e to mor e than

one r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on. Ext r i nsi c evi dence i n t he r ecor d

does not r el i eve t hi s uncer t ai nt y. I t f ol l ows t hat t he Rel ease

does not , as a mat t er of l aw, bar Mason' s cl ai m f or sever ance

benef i t s ar i si ng out of t he 2011 r eor gani zat i on. See Tor r es

Var gas, 149 F. 3d at 33; Al l en, 967 F. 2d at 698 n. 3.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . Because genui ne

i ssues of mat er i al f act per meat e t he r ecor d, t he di st r i ct cour t

shoul d not have granted TSA' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on

Mason' s cl ai m f or sever ance benef i t s ar i si ng out of t he 2011

r eor gani zat i on.

B. The February 2012 Non-Renewal.

Mason next cl ai ms t hat TSA t ermi nat ed hi s empl oyment

wi t hout cause when i t not i f i ed hi m i n Febr uar y of 2012 t hat i t



- 17 -

woul d not r enew t he Agreement but woul d l et i t expi r e on March 31,

2012. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s cl ai m, gr ant i ng summar y

j udgment i n f avor of TSA on t he basi s t hat non- r enewal was not

t ant amount t o t ermi nat i on. See Mason, 2014 WL 3962470, at *8.

As sai d, t he ef f ect i ve dat e of t he Agr eement was Apr i l

1, 2009. I t s non- r enewal cl ause expl ai ns t hat Tej as ( and by

subst i t ut i on, TSA) agr eed to empl oy Mason " f or a per i od commenci ng

on t he Ef f ect i ve Dat e and endi ng on t he f i r st anni ver sar y of t he

Ef f ect i ve Dat e ( t he ' Ter m' ) . " The "Ter m" woul d be extended f or

addi t i onal one- year per i ods unl ess ei t her par t y gave wr i t t en

not i ce of i t s exer ci se of t he non- r enewal opt i on "at l east t hi r t y

( 30) days pr i or t o t he appl i cabl e anni ver sar y of t he Ef f ect i ve

Dat e. "

Mason f i r st asser t s t hat t he non- r enewal cl ause i s

ambi guous as t o whet her t he exer ci se of t he r i ght of non- r enewal

had t he ef f ect of endi ng hi s empl oyment wi t h TSA or si mpl y endi ng

t he pr ot ect i ons pr ovi ded by t he Agr eement . I n hi s vi ew, empl oyment

under t he Agr eement was not merel y "l abor f or wage" but , r at her ,

"a speci f i c rel at i onshi p wi t h a speci f i c empl oyer . . . f or

par t i cul ar and agr eed upon t erms and condi t i ons. " When empl oyment

under t hose t er ms and condi t i ons ended, hi s t hesi s r uns, t he

empl oyment i t sel f was necessar i l y t er mi nated and the dut y t o pay

sever ance benef i t s was ki ndl ed.



- 18 -

Wor ds ar e not i nf i ni t el y mal l eabl e, see, e. g. ,

Levi nsky' s, I nc. v. Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. , 127 F. 3d 122, 129 ( 1st

Ci r . 1997) , and a cont r act t er m i s not ambi guous si mpl y because an

i magi nat i ve par t y conj ur es up an al t er nat e i nt er pr et at i on, see

F. D. I . C. v. Si ngh, 977 F. 2d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ; Lockyer , 132

Cal . Rpt r . 2d at 158. Read nat ur al l y, t he non- r enewal cl ause i s

not suscept i bl e t o Mason' s pr of f er ed i nt er pr et at i on. Af t er al l ,

a cont r act t er m shoul d not be const r ued i n i sol at i on; r at her , i t

shoul d be const r ued i n l i ght of t he cont r act as a whol e. See,

e. g. , Power i ne Oi l Co. v. Super i or Cour t , 118 P. 3d 589, 598 ( Cal .

2005) . By t he same t oken, a cour t shoul d const r ue a cont r act t o

gi ve ef f ect t o each mat er i al t er m and not t o r ender any t er m

meani ngl ess. See Luer as v. BAC Home Loans Servi ci ng, LP, 163 Cal .

Rpt r . 3d 804, 823 ( Cal . Ct . App. 2013) . These t enet s hel p t o

expl ai n why Mason' s cl ai m f ai l s.

"Non- r enewal " and " t er mi nat i on" ar e di st i nct t er ms

havi ng di f f er ent meani ngs. 7 Her e, mor eover , t he st r uct ur e of t he

7 " Ter mi nat i on" i s t ypi cal l y def i ned as t he "act of br i ngi ngt o an end or concl udi ng, " Webst er ' s Thi r d New I nt er nat i onalDi ct i onar y 2359 ( 2002) , or a "concl usi on or di scont i nuance, "Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 1700 ( 10t h ed. 2014) . By cont r ast ,"nonr enewal " means " a f ai l ur e to renew, " see i d. at 1220, wher e"r enew" t ypi cal l y means t o "make or do agai n, " Webst er ' s Thi r d NewI nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y 1922 ( 2002) , or t o "r est or [ e] orr eest abl i sh[ ] , " Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 1488 ( 10t h ed. 2014) . Thi sdi f f er ence i n meani ng i s al l t he mor e cl ear wher e, as her e, t hewor ds r ef er t o di f f er ent obj ect s: as t o t er mi nat i on, t he Agr eementspeaks t o var i ous ki nds of t er mi nat i on of empl oyment , but as t o



- 19 -

Agr eement makes i t nose- on- t he- f ace pl ai n t hat t he cont r act i ng

par t i es never i nt ended t o use t hose di st i nct t er ms synonymousl y.

Fi r st , t he non- r enewal cl ause appear s i n sect i on t wo of t he

Agr eement under t he headi ng "Ter m, " whereas t he t ermi nat i on cl ause

appears i n sect i on si x under t he headi ng "Consequences of

Termi nat i on of Empl oyment . " See, e. g. , Al ameda Cnt y. Fl ood Cont r ol

v. Dep' t of Wat er Res. , 152 Cal . Rpt r . 3d 845, 862 ( Cal . Ct . App.

2013) ( appl yi ng r ul e t hat " [ w] here t he same word or phrase mi ght

have been used . . . i n di f f er ent por t i ons of a [ cont r act ] but a

di f f er ent wor d or phr ase havi ng di f f er ent meani ng i s used i nst ead,

t he const r uct i on empl oyi ng t hat di f f er ent meani ng i s t o be f avor ed"

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Second, t he cont r act i ng

par t i es' i nt ent t o def i ne di f f er ent meani ngs i s wel l - i l l ust r at ed

by compar i ng t he 30- day not i ce requi r ement i n t he non- r enewal

cl ause wi t h t he 60- day not i ce r equi r ement i n t he "wi t hout cause"

por t i on of t he t er mi nat i on cl ause. I f t he par t i es had i nt ended

non- r enewal t o const i t ut e t er mi nat i on under t he Agr eement , t her e

woul d have been no need f or di spar ate not i ce per i ods. I ndeed,

such di sparat e per i ods woul d make no sense.

I n an ef f or t t o bl unt t he f or ce of t hi s r easoni ng, Mason

ar gues t hat t he di spar at e not i ce per i ods do not f or ecl ose t he

possi bi l i t y t hat non- r enewal i s a f or mof t er mi nat i on. He suggest s

non- r enewal , t he Agr eement speaks t o non- r enewal of t he t er m oft he cont r act .



- 20 -

t hat a j ur y r easonabl y coul d concl ude t hat t he cont r act i ng par t i es

agr eed t o a shor t er not i ce per i od f or non- r enewal because they

ant i ci pat ed t he possi bi l i t y t hat a deci si on not t o renew mi ght

occur cl oser to t he anni ver sar y dat e. But common sense

def enest r at es t hi s suggest i on. For one t hi ng, Mason' s

i nt er pr et at i on woul d hol l ow out t he bar gai ned- f or 60- day not i ce

r equi r ement f or t er mi nat i on wi t hout cause. For anot her t hi ng,

t her e i s a common- sense expl anat i on f or t he di spar at e not i ce

per i ods: t hat t ermi nat i on woul d end empl oyment wi t h TSA al t ogether

wher eas non- r enewal woul d onl y el i mi nate cer t ai n pr otect i ons under

t he Agr eement . Mason' s suggest ed r eadi ng compl etel y over l ooks

t hi s expl anat i on.

The mar ket pl ace r at i onal e f or such a common- sense

r eadi ng i s appar ent . The sever ance pr ovi si ons f or t er mi nat i on

wi t hout cause ar e generous ( but per haps mor e ephemeral t han Mason

woul d have l i ked) , and the cont r act i ng par t i es may wel l have want ed

t o ensur e t hat ei t her si de coul d r evi si t t hose pr ovi si ons

per i odi cal l y. The non- r enewal cl ause of f er ed t he par t i es j ust

such a vehi cl e.

To say mor e about t hi s cl ai m woul d be super er ogator y.

We hol d that t he non- r enewal cl ause i s not ambi guous i n the cont ext

of t he Agr eement as a whol e. See Dore, 139 P. 3d at 60. Gi vi ng

t he cont r act l anguage i t s pl ai n meani ng, see i d. , TSA' s exer ci se

of t he non- r enewal opt i on di d not work a t ermi nat i on of empl oyment



- 21 -

wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he Agr eement and, t hus, di d not t r i gger an

ent i t l ement t o sever ance payment s. Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not er r i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment on t hi s cl ai m.

C. The May 2012 Layoff.

I n t he cour t bel ow, Mason cont ended t hat TSA' s

t ermi nat i on of hi s empl oyment as par t of a company- wi de r educt i on

i n f orce on May 17, 2012 const i t ut ed t er mi nat i on wi t hout cause

wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he Agr eement and, t hus, t r i gger ed an

ent i t l ement t o severance payment s. Because Mason di d not r enew

t hi s cont ent i on i n hi s openi ng br i ef on appeal , he wai ved i t . See

DeCar o v. Hasbro, I nc. , 580 F. 3d 55, 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . And whi l e

Mason di d at t empt t o r esur r ect t hi s cont ent i on i n hi s r epl y br i ef ,

t hat was t oo l at e. See Ci pes v. Mi kasa, I nc. , 439 F. 3d 52, 55

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Sandst r omv. ChemLawn Corp. , 904 F. 2d 83, 87 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) .

We add t hat even i f t hi s cont ent i on had been pr eser ved

on appeal , i t woul d f ai l i n l i ght of our hol di ng t hat TSA' s t i mel y

exer ci se of i t s r i ght of non- r enewal t er mi nat ed t he Agr eement

wi t hout t er mi nat i ng Mason' s empl oyment . See supr a Par t I I . B. We

expl ai n br i ef l y.

To begi n, TSA val i dl y exerci sed i t s r i ght of non- r enewal

ef f ect i ve March 31, 2012. Consequent l y, Mason' s subsequent

empl oyment was not cover ed by the Agreement but , i nst ead, was f or

"no speci f i ed t er m. " Cal . Lab. Code § 2922. Under Cal i f or ni a



- 22 -

l aw, empl oyment wi t hout a f i xed t er m i s pr esumed t o be at wi l l .

See i d. ; Guz v. Becht el Nat ' l , I nc. , 8 P. 3d 1089, 1100 ( Cal . 2000) .

Mason at t empts t o over come t hi s presumpt i on. He

suggest s t hat si nce he cont i nued t o wor k f or TSA af t er t he

expi r at i on of t he Agr eement , per f ormi ng t he same t asks under t he

same j ob t i t l e f or t he same sal ar y and benef i t s as he pr evi ousl y

had r ecei ved, an i mpl i ed- i n- f act cont r act ar ose bet ween Apr i l 1

and May 17. I n hi s vi ew, t hi s i mpl i ed cont r act amount ed t o a

cont i nuat i on of t he Agr eement , so t hat he enj oyed t he same

severance prot ect i ons on May 17 as he had when t he Agreement was

i n f orce.

Thi s i s l i t t l e mor e t han wi shf ul t hi nki ng. Under

Cal i f or ni a l aw, a cour t cannot i mpl y a cont r act i n f act cont ai ni ng

t er ms t hat di r ect l y cont r adi ct t er ms of an expr ess at - wi l l

agr eement . See Toml i nson v. Qual comm, I nc. , 118 Cal . Rpt r . 2d

822, 830 ( Cal . Ct . App. 2002) ; Hal vor sen v. Ar amar k Uni f . Ser vs. ,

I nc. , 77 Cal . Rpt r . 2d 383, 385 ( Cal . Ct . App. 1998) . Thi s i s

especi al l y t r ue wher e t he wr i t t en agr eement was si gned by t he

empl oyee and expr essl y l i mi t s t he manner i n whi ch t he at - wi l l

pr ovi si ons may be al t er ed. See, e. g. , St ar zynski v. Capi t al Pub.

Radi o, I nc. , 105 Cal . Rpt r . 2d 525, 529 ( Cal . Ct . App. 2001) .

Here, Mason si gned t wo document s i n December of 2011 — t he Of f er

Let t er and t he New Agr eement —whi ch expl i ci t l y acknowl edged t hat ,

absent t he Agr eement , hi s empl oyment wi t h TSA woul d be at wi l l .



- 23 -

What i s mor e, each document st i pul at ed t hat t he at - wi l l pr ovi si ons

coul d not be al t ered except by a wr i t i ng si gned bot h by Mason and

TSA' s presi dent . I n t he f ace of t hese unmodi f i ed documents, Mason

cannot over come t he presumpt i on that hi s empl oyment on May 17 was

at wi l l . See i d. Ther ef or e, hi s l ayof f di d not ent i t l e hi m t o

t he prophyl axi s of t he Agr eement ( whi ch had by t hen expi r ed) . See

Hal vor sen, 77 Cal . Rpt r . 2d at 385.

I n an ef f or t t o change t he t r aj ect or y of t he debat e,

Mason argued bel ow t hat even i f hi s i mpl i ed cont r act argument

f ai l ed, t he non- r enewal of t he Agr eement di d not t ake ef f ect on

Apr i l 1 because t he Amendment ( whi ch had an ef f ect i ve dat e of

J anuar y 1) by some myst er i ous al chemy caused t he Agreement ' s

ef f ect i ve dat e t o mi gr at e f r om Apr i l 1 t o J anuar y 1. By t hi s

l ogi c, t he non- r enewal coul d not have been ef f ect i ve bef or e

December 31, 2012 —and Mason woul d have st i l l been cover ed by the

Agr eement ( and i t s sever ance pr otect i ons) when he was l ai d of f i n

May.

Thi s ar gument i s j ej une. The Amendment makes pel l uci d

t hat t he onl y aspect of t he Agr eement t hat i t al t er ed was t o

subst i t ut e TSA f or Tej as. I t pr ovi ded t hat t hi s subst i t ut i on woul d

t ake ef f ect on J anuar y 1, 2012, but i t di d not pr ovi de t hat ei t her

t he ter m of t he Agr eement or i t s ef f ect i ve dat e woul d i n any way

be revi sed.



That i s game, set , and mat ch. We hol d t hat Mason' s cl ai m

f or sever ance benef i t s st emmi ng f r om hi s l ayof f on May 17, 2012

has been wai ved; and t hat , i n al l event s, summary j udgment on t hat

cl ai m was appr opr i at e.

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . 8 For t he r easons el uci dat ed

above, we rever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s summar y j udgment r ul i ng i n

par t , af f i r m t hat r ul i ng i n par t , and r emand f or f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on. No cost s shal l be t axed

on appeal .

So Ordered.

8 Our deci si on t oday does not deal wi t h Mason' s cl ai m f orbr each of t he i mpl i ed covenant of good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng.Even t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess t hi s cl ai m i n anymeani ngf ul way, i t gr ant ed j udgment on t he case as a whol e, andMason t ook pai ns t o pr eser ve t hi s par t i cul ar cl ai m on appeal .Gi ven t hi s sequence of event s, we deem i t pr udent t o ref r ai n f r omaddr essi ng t he mat t er her e and, i nst ead, l eave i t open on r emand.Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Ti cchi ar el l i , 171 F. 3d 24, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .I n cont r ast , Mason di d not pr eser ve on appeal hi s cl ai m f or avi ol at i on of t he Cal i f or ni a Labor Code. Thus, we deem t hat cl ai mf or ecl osed on r emand. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Connel l , 6 F. 3d27, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors Amer, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents