Nor did they propose any particular language for the punitive damages instruction. 1998) (upholding punitive damages instruction that used "formulation drawn strictly from federal precedents" which did not distinguish between federal section 1983 standard and state chapter 151B standard), defendants did not object to the phraseology of the punitive damages instruction before the jury retired. Defendants nevertheless reason that the jury must have awarded the damages under Title VII because of the instruction's reference to "federally protected rights." Rather, the jury made the award under chapter 151B. (Docket Entry # 108, ¶¶ 3 & 4).įirst and foremost, the jury did not award plaintiff punitive damages against the City of Quincy under Title VII. Accordingly, defendants seek to overturn the jury's Title VII-based punitive damages award because: (1) a punitive damages award under Title VII cannot stand without an accompanying compensatory or back pay award and (2) a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages from a government, government agency or political subdivision. They base this assumption on the phraseology of the punitive damages instruction which referred to "plaintiff's federally protected rights." (Docket Entry # 108, ¶ 3). This court addresses these additional grounds for the motion before turning to the insufficient evidence challenge.įirst, in the third paragraph, defendants assert that the jury incorrectly awarded punitive damages under Title VII. Defendants raise three additional challenges to the judgment, two of which are based on the incorrect premise that the jury issued the punitive damages award under Title VII. In the first and second paragraphs of their five paragraph motion, defendants challenge the $135,000 award of punitive damages on the basis that it is contrary to the evidence, unsupportable and excessive as a matter of law. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DOCKET ENTRY # 108)
Defendants likewise oppose Attorney Kaplan's petition.
With few exceptions, plaintiff opposes her former counsel's petition. Kaplan ("Attorney Kaplan"), plaintiff's former counsel, filed a petition for attorney's fees and costs in the respective amounts of $58,635 and $5,815.86. ("Rule 54(d)") including attorney's fees in the amount of $5,716.87. As a separate matter, plaintiff's bill of costs and response to a Procedural Order seeks reimbursement for costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) ("Rule 50(b)") and a timely motion to amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. On May 15, 2002, the City of Quincy, Frane and Sheets (collectively: "defendants") filed a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. The jury did award plaintiff the sum of $135,000 in punitive damages against the City of Quincy under *29 chapter 151B. The jury declined to award plaintiff either back or front pay. Nor did the jury find defendants James Sheets ("Mayor Sheets" or "the Mayor"), Mayor for the City of Quincy from 1990 to 2002, and Thomas Frane ("Frane," "Chief Frane" or "the Chief"), Police Chief of the City of Quincy during plaintiff's September 1997 to June 1998 tenure as Executive Director for the Commission, liable for wrongful discharge or a hostile work environment under chapter 151B and section 1983.Īs compensatory damages, plaintiff limited her claims to back pay and front pay. The jury did not find the City of Quincy liable for the wrongful discharge claims under Title VII or chapter 151B or the hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C.
("Title VII") and Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B ("chapter 151B") for the sexual harassment plaintiff Kathleen Bandera ("plaintiff" or "Bandera") experienced while employed as the Executive Director of the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving Commission ("the Commission") of the Quincy Police Department ("the police department") from September 1997 to June 1998. On May 9, 2002, after hearing seven days of testimony and deliberating for two days, the jury in this wrongful discharge and sexual harassment case rendered a verdict finding defendant City of Quincy ("the City of Quincy" or "the city") liable under 42 U.S.C. KAPLAN'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (DOCKET ENTRY # 110) BILL OF COSTS (DOCKET ENTRY # 113)īOWLER, Chief United States Magistrate Judge. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (DOCKET ENTRY # 108) ATTORNEY WENDY A. Grunebaum, Holtz Gilman Grunebaum, Thomas J Marcoline, Holtz Gilman Grunebaum, Boston, MA, for Defendants. CITY OF QUINCY, Mayor James Sheets, and Police Chief Thomas Frane, Defendants.
0 kommentar(er)
