123 N.E.3d 737
Mass.2019Background
- Richard DaPrato, a long‑time MWRA IT manager with positive reviews, took FMLA leave for foot surgery in Feb–Mar 2015 and was approved for MWRA "salary continuation."
- While on approved FMLA leave (and receiving salary continuation), DaPrato took a preplanned family vacation to Mexico (Mar 12–24) and returned to work Mar 30.
- MWRA HR learned of the vacation, conducted an investigation (reviewing parking‑lot videos taken at MWRA facilities), interviewed DaPrato, and concluded he misrepresented his condition; senior management terminated him April 10, 2015.
- DaPrato sued under the FMLA, ADA, and G. L. c. 151B for retaliatory termination; a jury found for DaPrato and awarded back pay, front pay (advisory), emotional distress, and punitive damages; the judge awarded liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and reduced front pay by remittitur.
- MWRA appealed, arguing instructional errors (causation standard, omission of an "honest belief" defense, and a limiting instruction about vacation conduct) and contesting several damage awards. The SJC affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper causation instruction for FMLA retaliation (motivating factor v. "but‑for") | DaPrato argued jury should apply a but‑for standard (retaliation was cause of firing). | MWRA argued instructions blurred motivating‑factor and but‑for standards and warranted new trial. | Court held instructions, read as a whole, applied a but‑for standard and were correct; no prejudicial error. |
| Whether jury may consider employee's conduct/location while on leave (vacation) as independent, non‑retaliatory reason for termination | DaPrato argued vacation alone cannot be penalized; conduct must be inconsistent with medical leave to justify termination. | MWRA argued vacation conduct (e.g., photos showing mobility) could constitute independent reason to fire. | Court held employer may consider conduct inconsistent with certified medical limitations, but judge’s curative instruction (preventing jury from penalizing mere vacationing) was within discretion and not prejudicial because MWRA lacked the vacation conduct evidence when it decided to terminate. |
| Whether court must instruct jury on employer "honest belief" defense to liability | DaPrato argued that good‑faith belief is relevant only to damages mitigation, not to liability. | MWRA wanted an "honest belief" instruction shielding liability if it honestly (but mistakenly) believed employee misused FMLA. | Court held FMLA’s text confines good‑faith/reasonable‑grounds inquiry to reduction of liquidated damages, not to negating liability; refusing the instruction was correct. |
| Challenges to damages (liquidated, punitive, emotional distress, front pay computation) | DaPrato sought full recovery of back/front pay, liquidated, emotional and punitive damages; expert calculated pension loss for front pay. | MWRA argued good‑faith grounds negate liquidated damages, punitive and emotional awards excessive, and front pay should be reduced by posttermination higher earnings. | Court affirmed: judge found MWRA lacked objectively reasonable grounds so liquidated damages appropriate; punitive and emotional awards supported by evidence and not excessive; front pay (lost pension) properly calculated and MWRA not entitled to offset posttermination higher, nonpensionable earnings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (elements for FMLA retaliation claim)
- Colburn v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 429 F.3d 325 (1st Cir. 2005) (discussion of FMLA retaliation/interference theory and mixed‑motive issues)
- Pagán‑Colón v. Walgreens of San Patricio, Inc., 697 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (good‑faith showing under FMLA liquidated damages analysis)
- University of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) ("because of" language supports but‑for causation standard)
- Esler v. Sylvia‑Reardon, 473 Mass. 775 (2016) (employer cannot treat taking FMLA leave as a negative factor; factual context of vacation while on leave)
- Traxler v. Multnomah County, 596 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (front pay under FMLA is equitable and for the judge to determine)
- Haddad v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009) (mitigation duty and punitive damages standards)
- Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc., 466 Mass. 398 (2013) (due‑process review of punitive damages for excessiveness)
- Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp., 829 F.2d 367 (7th Cir. 1987) (front pay may include lost pension benefits; no offset for higher posttermination nonpensionable earnings)