13 N.E.3d 615
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Kiely, a longtime Teradyne test technician, was laid off in 2006 when her unit closed; she filed an MCAD charge alleging gender discrimination shortly after the layoff.
- Teradyne rehired two male former colleagues to a different department (ATD) without interviewing Kiely; HR instructed the hiring manager to document the hiring process unusually closely.
- After an eight-day jury trial, jury found for Teradyne on discrimination, for Kiely on retaliation, awarded zero compensatory damages but $1.1 million punitive damages on retaliation.
- Trial judge denied defendant’s motion for full judgment n.o.v., vacated the punitive damages award postverdict, and denied Kiely attorney’s fees under G. L. c. 151B, § 9 because she was not a prevailing party.
- Kiely appealed (challenging jury instructions and vacatur of punitive damages) and separately appealed denial of attorney’s fees; Teradyne cross-appealed denial of judgment n.o.v. on retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of punitive damages award | Kiely: punitive award justified by retaliation and inference Fitton lied; jury could infer concealment | Teradyne: evidence insufficient for "outrageous or egregious" conduct required for punitive damages | Vacatur affirmed — punitive award unsupported under Haddad factors and due-process scrutiny |
| Jury instructions on termination separate from non‑rehire | Kiely: judge should have instructed on termination as separate discriminatory act | Teradyne: termination was part of facility closure; no evidence termination alone was discriminatory | No error — trial focused on failure to rehire; separate termination instruction not warranted |
| Instruction re: statistical evidence | Kiely: needed statistical-inference instruction | Teradyne: plaintiff declined expert to explain stats; evidence unreliable | No error — judge acted within discretion to omit statistical instruction given record |
| Defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. on retaliation | Teradyne: insufficient evidence Fitton knew of MCAD at hiring decision | Kiely: HR’s unusual directive to document provided circumstantial proof Fitton knew | Denial affirmed — jury had sufficient circumstantial basis (a "toe-hold") to find retaliation |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under G. L. c. 151B, § 9 with no recovery | Kiely: statute awards fees on a ‘‘finding’’ of liability irrespective of relief | Teradyne: § 9 requires fees only in addition to some relief; analogies to c.93A | Denied — a finding of liability alone without monetary or other relief does not trigger § 9 fees; consistent with Jet Line reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciccarelli v. School Dept. of Lowell, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 787 (explains punitive damages review and upholding awards where affirmative concealment exists)
- Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (articulates Haddad factors for punitive damages under G. L. c. 151B)
- Dartt v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 427 Mass. 1 (defines punitive damages standard)
- Aleo v. SLB Toys USA, Inc., 466 Mass. 398 (due‑process limits on grossly excessive punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (constitutional guideposts on punitive damages excessiveness)
- Bain v. Springfield, 424 Mass. 758 (limits on leaving punitive damages to unguided jury discretion)
- Jet Line Servs., Inc. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 404 Mass. 706 (fees under analogous G. L. c. 93A require some form of relief; guides § 9 interpretation)
- Clifton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 445 Mass. 611 (example of pattern/egregious conduct supporting punitive damages)
- Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620 (procedure favoring submission to jury where directed verdict is a close question)