Mike is a litigator concentrating in commercial litigation of all types; employment related matters, including executive claims of wrongful discharge, defense of discrimination claims before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and State and Federal courts, and negotiation of termination agreements; disputes among owners of businesses; and insurance defense and coverage issues. Mike has been a panel member at continuing legal education courses on remedies for wrongful termination and employment discrimination, and is the principal author of the chapter on damages for wrongful discharge in A Judicial Guide to Labor and Employment Law, published in 1990. 

Mike has an "AV^® Preeminent 5.0 out of 5" (highest) rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and was recognized in Massachusetts Super Lawyers^® 2009.  

Michael R. Coppock

online at

visit superlawyers.com

 

Education

Harvard University, J.D.
Drury University, B.A.

Bar Admissions

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
First Circuit Court of Appeals
USDC for Massachusetts

SIGNIFICANT VERDICTS

• Teacher vs. Private School and Two Principals.  When the plaintiff teacher’s contract was not renewed by the private school, she filed an age discrimination charge against the School and two of its Principals in the MCAD.  Mike opposed the charge, and obtained a finding of no probable cause.  The teacher then brought suit in Superior Court, claiming age discrimination against the School, and interference with contract and defamation against the two Principals.  Mike moved for summary judgment, and the claims of age discrimination and interference with contract were dismissed.  The defamation claim against the two Principals was tried before a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of one of the Principals, and against the other, but for much less than the settlement offer.  The teacher reapplied for employment at the School.  When her application was declined she filed a complaint of retaliation with the MCAD.  Mike opposed the complaint.  The MCAD found no probable cause and dismissed it.

• Chief Financial Officer vs. Wholly-owned Subsidiary of a Major Boston Bank. Mike’s client was recruited to be the CFO of the wholly-owned subsidiary of a major Boston bank. The client’s hiring letter said, "In addition to your compensation, you will participate as a member of the management team in an equity pool estimated at approximately 10% of the company." After accepting the offer, Mike's client joined with the subsidiary’s CEO to draft a phantom stock plan to implement the promise of equity made in the offer letter. However, the parent bank took the project away. Rather than granting equity in the subsidiary, the bank granted its own restricted shares and options. The bank’s stock value fell, making the restricted shares worth only $60,000. The options were never in the money, so had no value.
  
  The subsidiary was sold for $185 million three years after Mike’s client became its CFO. Mike’s client produced his hiring letter, and asked for a share of the equity realized on the sale. His claim was refused. An action on the contract followed. The subsidiary claimed that its CEO never had authority to make the offer of equity, and that the parent bank’s shares and options were given in substitution for the promise of the subsidiary’s equity. After six days of trial a jury of eleven women and two men returned a verdict of $2.1 million in favor of Mike’s client. The bank paid the judgment, and did not appeal.

• Chief Operating Officer and Minority Shareholder vs. Three Related Corporations and Their Majority Shareholder. Mike’s client was recruited to be the Chief Operating Officer of three commonly owned corporations that provided health care services. The client signed a five-year employment contract that could be terminated only for "illegal conduct." The contract required transfer of a one-third interest in each corporation to Mike’s client. The shares were paid for with a note, which was to be paid from mandatory bonuses from the corporate employers.
  
  After several years of performance, Mike’s client and the majority shareholder had a falling out. The majority shareholder thereupon commissioned an "investigation" of Mike’s client, "discovered" that he had engaged in "sexual harassment," and discharged him. The three corporations (controlled by the majority shareholder) thereupon "cancelled" the client's minority interest in the companies without payment.
  
  Mike brought suit against the three corporations and their majority shareholder for nonpayment of wages earned before the discharge; damages for failure to pay compensation for the remaining term of the contract; indemnification of litigation costs under the corporations’ Officer and Director Indemnification By-law; and interference with contract against the majority shareholder. The corporate defendants counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement, claiming that Mike’s client misrepresented his qualifications in negotiating the employment agreement; breach of fiduciary duty by "sexually harassing" subordinate female employees; conversion of office equipment; and failure to pay the stock purchase note.
  
  At trial Mike offered evidence strongly showing that the charge of sexual harassment was a trumped-up pretext for canceling the contract and shares of Mike’s client. The jury agreed.
  
  After ten days of trial, the jury of seven men and seven women returned a verdict in favor of Mike’s client, awarding over $900,000 in unpaid wages and contract damages against the corporations, and over $100,000 against the majority shareholder for interference with contract. The jury rejected all of the defendants’ counterclaims. In a later assessment of damages, the judge awarded over $4 million in damages for "cancellation" of the client’s one-third interest in the corporations, plus attorneys’ fees under the indemnification by-laws.

• Seafood Software Co. v. Independent Programmer.  Mike represented the plaintiff, a distributor of popular software used to capture costs in the seafood processing industry.  The company hired the programmer to rewrite the software in a new language.  After working on the project for several years, and being paid $250,000, the programmer abruptly demanded a large pay increase, and a partnership interest in the software.  Even though the company acceded to most of the demands, the programmer resigned and copyrighted the software in his own name.  The company brought suit in Plymouth Superior Court for a determination that it owned the software.  The programmer asserted several counterclaims, but withdrew most in the face of Mike’s motion to dismiss on several grounds, including the SLAPP statute.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the company on all claims, and against the programmer on his remaining counterclaims.  The jury awarded damages of $9,640.19, and the judge awarded ownership of the software to Mike’s client, plus $125,000.00 in fees.  In the course of his opinion, Judge David M. McLaughlin observed, “This case was strenuously contested by both counsel who were very professional in their dealings with the Court and with each other.  The direct examinations and cross-examinations by each attorney were of a quality rarely seen.  This was a complex case which was simplified for the jury and the Court by plaintiff’s counsel [Mike].”

SIGNIFICANT ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT CASES

• Travel Consultant vs. Travel Agency.  The travel consultant took FMLA leave to obtain treatment for bipolar disorder.  Her fellow employees objected to her return because she was a disruptive force in the office.  Her immediate supervisor took the issue up with the company’s Chief Operating Officer.  In the course of investigating the situation, the COO learned for the first time that the employee had shoved a fellow employee as she was leaving the office on her last day of work.  That contravened the company’s no violence policy.  The COO telephoned the employee, and described the incident.  The employee did not deny it.  With that, the COO terminated her.  She filed a claim of discrimination with the MCAD and then removed the case to Superior Court shortly after Mike filed a response on behalf of the company.  In Superior Court, the employee asserted claims of violation of the FMLA, the Massachusetts equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities Act,  and breach of contract. The case is awaiting trial.

• Building Manager vs. Management Company.  The plaintiff was the part-time manager of a housing complex.  Her job was to show and rent apartments.  She had other full-time employment which required frequent out-of-town travel.  When the development’s occupancy rate fell, the management company concluded that it needed full-time attention to attracting tenants.  Consequently, the management company terminated the plaintiff, offering one month’s severance pay in exchange for a release.  She rejected the offer, retained counsel, and filed a complaint in the MCAD.  Her theory was that her termination was in retaliation for her association with her allegedly handicapped brother, who was a tenant in the development. Mike filed an extensive response on behalf of the management company.  The MCAD found no probable cause, dismissed the complaint, and denied the plaintiff's appeal.

* * *

Mike has also prosecuted and defended many cases arising from non-competition and confidentiality agreements, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and claims among feuding close corporation shareholders.  These cases are often won or lost at the preliminary injunction stage.  Mike is often successful in defeating preliminary injunctions sought by his clients’ former employers by showing that the employee was not in a position to appropriate or benefit from the good will of his former employer.  Prosecution of these claims requires not only a thorough examination of the former employee’s explicit agreements with the company, but also a thorough review of his access to trade secrets and fiduciary duties arising from the former employee’s status as a stockholder, director, officer, or employee.  One must also investigate the employee’s pre-termination preparations to leave.  Did he consult with advisors, real estate brokers, suppliers, and prospective employees on his former employer’s time?  Did he solicit fellow workers to join the enterprise while he was still with his former employer?  Did he encourage the former employer’s customers to defer purchases until he could open his own business and service them himself?  While working for the former employer did he deliberately do things to alienate its customers, suppliers, or employees? Did he send company records to his personal email address?

Mike has appeared as counsel in many published appellate decisions.

« View All Attorneys