Tortious Inteference

• The tort of intentional interference with advantageous relations often is considered in the context of employment.


• The specific elements that must be proved in order to establish a claim of intentional interference with an employment relationship are (1) an advantageous employment relationship; (2) the defendant's knowledge of such relationship; (3) that the defendant's interference, in addition to being intentional, was improper in motive or means; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered economic harm as a result of the defendant's conduct. Blackstone v. Cashman, 448 Mass. 255, 260 (2006); Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 443 Mass. 367, 394-395 (2005)


• Where an employee alleges that individual officials of his employer interfered with his employment relationship, the plaintiff must show that "actual malice" was the controlling factor in the alleged interference. Weber v. Community Teamwork, Inc., 434 Mass. 761, 781-782 (2001)


• "Actual malice" is defined as a "spiteful, malignant purpose, unrelated to the legitimate corporate interest." Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, 412 Mass. 469, 476 (1992)


• Under the doctrine of respondeat superior a Company is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees if the torts are committed within the scope of their employment. Burroughs v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 874, 877 (1996)