20 N.E.3d 229
Mass.2014Background
- Fernandes, hired in 2001 as maintenance mechanic II, was terminated May 29, 2009.
- He alleged Wage Act violations: misclassification as II instead of I and underpayment of wages.
- He also alleged retaliation under Wage Act §148A for filing a complaint with the Attorney General.
- Trial in January 2012: jury found for Fernandes on both claims, awarding $2,300 unpaid wages and $130,000 lost wages due to retaliation; treble damages and fees awarded.
- AHA moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Civil Service Commission exclusivity.
- Trial judge denied relief; concluded Wage Act claims are not precluded from judicial action and reinstatement not available under the Wage Act; additur denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction over Wage Act claims | Fernandes contends wage/retaliation claims fall outside civil service exclusivity. | AHA argues exclusive Civil Service Commission jurisdiction over housing authority actions. | Superior Court jurisdiction proper; not precluded by civil service exclusivity. |
| Whether reinstatement is available remedy under the Wage Act | Fernandes seeks reinstatement as equitable relief under §150. | AHA argues reinstatement not authorized by Wage Act and not analogous to MCAD remedies. | Reinstatement not available remedy under the Wage Act. |
| Appropriate remedy for damages (additur/new trial) under Wage Act | damages ($193,750) reflect trial evidence; additur should be granted. | jury award ($130,000) not unduly slim; additur not warranted. | judge did not abuse discretion; no additur or new trial on damages. |
| Appellate attorney's fees and costs | Prevailing party entitled to appellate fees under §150. | N/A (not raised as separate dispute in summary). | Appellate fees and costs may be awarded; Fernandes directed to submit supporting materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Administrator of the Div. of Personnel Admin., 377 Mass. 217 (1979) (principal about primary jurisdiction and agency expertise)
- Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585 (2009) (primary jurisdiction and staying/dismissal when agency has exclusive authority)
- Columbia Chiropractic Group, Inc. v. Trust Ins. Co., 430 Mass. 60 (1999) (statutory interpretation and agency expertise context)
- Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436 (2008) (two avenues for redress under discrimination statutes; remedies differ by statute)
- Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549 (2004) (administrative remedies and the role of MCAD in reinstatement context)
- Dedham v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 365 Mass. 392 (1974) (exclusive jurisdiction concepts and interplay of agencies)
- Camerlengo v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 382 Mass. 689 (1981) (housing authority cases and civil service limitations)