NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-11580
DAVID FERNANDES vs. ATTLEBORO HOUSING AUTHORITY.
Bristol. September 4, 2014. - November 19, 2014.
Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk,
& Hines, JJ.
Labor, Wages. Superior Court, Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction,
Primary jurisdiction, Superior Court, Civil Service
Commission. Public Employment, Termination, Reinstatement
of personnel. Civil Service, Applicability of provisions,
Termination of employment, Reinstatement of personnel.
Employment, Termination, Retaliation. Damages, Additur.
Practice, Civil, Additur, Attorney's fees. Housing
Authority. Municipal Corporations, Housing authority.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on
November 13, 2009.
The case was heard by Robert J. Kane, J., and motions for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reinstatement, and for
a new trial or for additur were heard by him.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative
transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Maria M. Scott for the plaintiff.
David D. Dowd for the defendant.
SPINA, J. David Fernandes was employed by the Attleboro
Housing Authority (AHA) as a maintenance mechanic II from
2
January 16, 2001, until his termination on May 29, 2009.
Approximately six months later, he commenced an action in the
Superior Court against the AHA for alleged violations of the
Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148 and 148A. Fernandes claimed that
the AHA violated § 148 by intentionally misclassifying his
position as maintenance mechanic II, instead of maintenance
mechanic I, and thereby failing to pay him the wages to which he
was entitled. Fernandes also alleged that the AHA violated
§ 148A by terminating him in retaliation for complaining about
nonpayment of earned wages and filing a complaint with the
Attorney General's office.1 Following a trial in January, 2012,
a jury, in response to special questions, found in favor of
Fernandes on both claims. The jury awarded damages against the
AHA in the amount of $2,300 for unpaid wages due to
misclassification, and $130,000 for lost wages due to
retaliation.
The parties then filed numerous posttrial motions. Of
relevance to the present appeal, the AHA filed a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contending that the
Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
1
The remaining count of David Fernandes's complaint (count
two) alleged that his termination violated his procedural rights
under G. L. c. 121B, § 29, and G. L. c. 31, §§ 39-45. Fernandes
agreed to defer consideration of this claim until the jury
decided the matters of unpaid wages and retaliation. Following
the jury's verdict, Fernandes voluntarily withdrew count two of
his complaint.
3
Fernandes's wage and retaliation claims because, as a housing
authority employee, Fernandes was required to bring such claims
before the Civil Service Commission (commission) for resolution.
Fernandes filed a motion for reinstatement to the position of
maintenance mechanic I with full seniority as if he had not been
terminated from employment on May 29, 2009, and a motion for a
new trial on damages or, in the alternative, for additur.
Following hearings, the trial judge denied all three motions in
a thorough and well-reasoned decision.
First, after considering the purposes of and remedies
afforded by the Massachusetts civil service law, G. L. c. 31,
§§ 41-45, and the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 148A, 150, the
judge discerned no legislative intent to confine a housing
authority employee to the procedures set forth in the civil
service law where his termination implicated violations of his
rights under the Wage Act. Accordingly, the judge concluded
that the AHA was not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the
verdict. Next, with respect to Fernandes's motion for
reinstatement, the judge was unpersuaded that G. L. c. 149,
§ 150, authorized such a remedy for retaliatory conduct in the
absence of clear statutory language to that effect. Finally,
the judge concluded that although the jury's calculation of
$130,000 in damages for lost wages due to retaliation was less
than the amount to which Fernandes thought he was entitled, the
4
award was neither unreasonable nor so unduly small as to suggest
the need for additional relief. In accordance with G. L.
c. 149, § 150, the judge proceeded to award Fernandes treble
damages in the amount of $6,900 for unpaid wages and $390,000
for retaliatory termination, plus reasonable attorney's fees in
the amount of $36,667.50 and costs of $1,087.36.
The parties' cross appeals were entered in the Appeals
Court, and we transferred the case to this court on our own
motion. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the
Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Fernandes's
claims under the Wage Act, that reinstatement to employment is
not an available remedy for violations of such statutory scheme,
and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying
Fernandes's motion for additur. Accordingly, the judgment of
the Superior Court is affirmed.
1. Background. We briefly recite the facts the jury could
have found from the evidence at trial, reserving some details
for later discussion. When Fernandes was hired by the AHA in
2001, he was classified as a maintenance mechanic II. It was an
entry-level position, considered to be in the nature of an
apprenticeship to a higher job classification.
In 2003, the executive director of the AHA, John Zambarano,
implemented changes to the duties of its maintenance department
workers. Pursuant to these changes, Fernandes was required to
5
perform more diversified work that he believed was consistent
with the position of maintenance mechanic I, which required a
greater skill level and paid a higher salary than he was
receiving.2 Notwithstanding Fernandes's enhanced job
responsibilities, the AHA continued to pay him the salary of a
maintenance mechanic II. On various occasions over the years of
his tenure, Fernandes complained to his supervisor, Mark
Johnson, and to Zambarano that he was misclassified and that,
based on his duties, he properly should be classified as a
maintenance mechanic I with the commensurate wage rate. His
complaints were unsuccessful.
Finally, on April 28, 2009, Fernandes filed a "Non-Payment
of Wage and Workplace Complaint Form" with the Attorney
General's office. He alleged that, based on his job
responsibilities, he had been misclassified as a maintenance
mechanic II and was owed wages commensurate with the position of
maintenance mechanic I. Fernandes informed Johnson that he had
filed this complaint, and he subsequently requested and received
from Dianne Precourt, AHA's financial coordinator, copies of his
job description and the prevailing wage rates. One month later,
2
In accordance with the provisions of G. L. c. 121B, § 29,
the Commissioner of Labor and Industries establishes minimum
wage rates for specified housing authority employees that are
based on their job classifications. For example, on April 1,
2009, the minimum hourly base rate for a maintenance mechanic II
increased from $20.51 to $21.32. The minimum hourly base rate
for a maintenance mechanic I increased from $20.76 to $21.83.
6
on May 29, 2009, Zambarano called Fernandes into a meeting and
informed him that, based on the seniority of the personnel on
the maintenance staff, Fernandes was being laid off due to
budgetary constraints. He was given two weeks of severance pay.
The present action ensued.
2. Jurisdiction over Fernandes's claims. The AHA contends
in this appeal that a housing authority employee can seek
redress for an adverse employment action only through
administrative proceedings under the civil service law, G. L.
c. 31, §§ 41-45, and not through judicial proceedings in the
Superior Court. In the AHA's view, Fernandes's complaint
essentially alleged that he had been subjected to a decrease in
compensation and then terminated without "just cause," G. L.
c. 31, § 41, which are matters within the exclusive purview of
the commission. Consequently, the AHA continues, the Superior
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Fernandes's
original action and, therefore, the judge should have granted
AHA's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. We disagree.3
3
"[T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised by the parties at any time or by the court on its own
motion." Maxwell v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 460 Mass. 91, 99
(2011). Here, the Attleboro Housing Authority (AHA) raised the
issue of jurisdiction in a memorandum of law filed in connection
with its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Where
a determination is made that a court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over asserted claims, its judgment is void. See
ROPT Ltd. Partnership v. Katin, 431 Mass. 601, 605 (2000).
7
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction arises in cases where
a plaintiff, "in the absence of pending administrative
proceedings, invokes the original jurisdiction of a court to
decide the merits of a controversy" that includes an issue
within the special competence of an agency. Murphy v.
Administrator of the Div. of Personnel Admin., 377 Mass. 217,
220 (1979). See Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585, 609
(2009); Leahy v. Local 1526, Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun.
Employees, 399 Mass. 341, 345-346 & n.3 (1987). See generally
A.J. Cella, Administrative Law and Practice § 1725 (1986 & Supp.
2014). "Where an agency has statutorily been granted exclusive
authority over a particular issue, the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction requires that a court refer the issue to the agency
for adjudication in the first instance" (emphasis in original).
Blauvelt v. AFSCME Council 93, Local 1703, 74 Mass. App. Ct.
794, 801 (2009), citing Everett v. 357 Corp., supra at 609-610.
See Puorro v. Commonwealth, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 64 (2003).
The underlying rationale is that a court must be careful not to
invade the province of an administrative agency before it has
begun to exercise its authority in a particular case because
judicial interference effectively would transfer to the courts a
matter entrusted to the agency by the Legislature and would
result in a substitution of the court's judgment for that of the
agency. See Wilczewski v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Envtl.
8
Quality Eng'g, 404 Mass. 787, 792 (1989). The doctrine of
primary jurisdiction has particular applicability when "an
action raises a question of the validity of an agency practice
. . . or when the issue in litigation involves 'technical
questions of fact uniquely within the expertise and experience
of an agency'" (citations omitted). Murphy v. Administrator of
the Div. of Personnel Admin., supra at 221, quoting Nader v.
Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290, 304 (1976). See
Columbia Chiropractic Group, Inc. v. Trust Ins. Co., 430 Mass.
60, 62 (1999).
This court has noted that "[a] determination that primary
jurisdiction over an issue in a civil case resides with an
administrative agency requires that the case be stayed or
dismissed to permit the administrative agency the opportunity to
issue its determination." Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. at
610 n.32. When an entire controversy is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of an administrative agency, the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction "ordinarily results in dismissal of
judicial proceedings begun without prior resort to the agency."
J. & J. Enters., Inc. v. Martignetti, 369 Mass. 535, 540 (1976).
However, "[w]here at least one of the issues or claims is a
matter for judicial determination or resolution, the court is
not ousted of subject matter jurisdiction by the presence in the
case of one or more issues which arguably are within the
9
jurisdiction of an administrative or regulatory agency." Austin
Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils., Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641, 646 &
n.5 (Ind. 1995). See Everett v. 357 Corp., supra at 611 n.34.
We proceed to consider the exclusivity of the commission's
jurisdiction with respect to Fernandes's claims. The AHA argues
that because G. L. c. 121B, § 29, explicitly provides civil
service protections to tenured housing authority employees, the
Legislature intended to confer jurisdiction solely on the
commission to resolve complaints about purported adverse
employment actions. We conclude that nothing in the civil
service law suggests that Fernandes was required to bring his
action before the commission where his claims alleged violations
of the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148 and 148A.4
General Laws c. 121B, § 29, provides that "[n]o employee of
any housing authority, except an employee occupying the position
of executive director, who has held his office or position . . .
within the authority for a total period of five years of
uninterrupted service, shall be involuntarily separated
therefrom except subject to and in accordance with the
provisions of [G. L. c. 31, §§ 41-45,] to the same extent as if
4
Even if Fernandes had not voluntarily withdrawn count two
of his complaint, see note 1, supra, the Superior Court would
not have been divested of subject matter jurisdiction. The
matter simply could have been stayed while the Civil Service
Commission (commission) issued a decision on the issues raised
in count two. See Everett v. 357 Corp., 453 Mass. 585, 609-610
& n.32 (2009).
10
said office or position were classified under said chapter." In
turn, G. L. c. 31, § 41, states that a tenured employee shall
not be discharged or laid off except for "just cause" and except
in accordance with specific procedural requirements set forth in
the first paragraph of § 41. Pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 42,
"[a]ny person who alleges that an appointing authority has
failed to follow the requirements of [§ 41] in taking action
which has affected his employment or compensation may file a
complaint with the commission" (emphasis added).5 In accordance
with G. L. c. 31, § 43, "[i]f a person aggrieved by a decision
of an appointing authority made pursuant to [§ 41] shall . . .
appeal in writing to the commission, he shall be given a
hearing." Thereafter, "[a]ny party aggrieved by a final order
or decision of the commission . . . may institute proceedings
for judicial review in the superior court." G. L. c. 31, § 44.
Finally, a tenured employee who has incurred attorney's fees in
the defense of an unwarranted adverse employment action "shall
be reimbursed for such expense," subject to specified
limitations. G. L. c. 31, § 45. In essence, G. L. c. 121B,
§ 29, affords housing authority employees, like Fernandes, the
protections of the civil service system.
5
The term "[a]ppointing authority" is defined as "any
person, board or commission with power to appoint or employ
personnel in civil service positions." G. L. c. 31, § 1.
11
"The fundamental purpose of the civil service system is to
guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in
governmental hiring and promotion." Massachusetts Ass'n of
Minority Law Enforcement Officers v. Abban, 434 Mass. 256, 259
(2001). It also is designed to "protect efficient public
employees" from partisanship and arbitrary punishment. Murray
v. Second Dist. Court of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514
(1983), quoting Debnam v. Belmont, 388 Mass. 632, 635 (1983).
See Dedham v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 365 Mass. 392, 396-397
(1974). The civil service system accomplishes its purpose by
mandating that an adverse employment action be taken only for
"just cause," and by imposing on an appointing authority the
obligation to comply with procedural requirements that are
intended to protect the rights of a tenured employee. "If the
commission finds that the appointing authority has failed to
follow [the] requirements [of G. L. c. 31, § 41,] and that the
rights of [any] person [filing a complaint] have been prejudiced
thereby, the commission shall order the appointing authority to
restore said person to his employment immediately without loss
of compensation or other rights." G. L. c. 31, § 42.
The aforementioned language of G. L. c. 121B, § 29, and the
provisions of G. L. c. 31, §§ 41-45, clearly are meant to
protect tenured employees' rights, but nothing therein dictates
that the only avenue by which a housing authority employee who
12
claims that he has been paid inadequate wages and involuntarily
separated from his employment can seek redress is through
administrative proceedings before the commission. To the
contrary, the language in G. L. c. 31, § 42, stating that an
aggrieved employee "may" file a complaint with the commission
strongly suggests that the Legislature has not granted exclusive
authority over all challenged employment actions to the
commission. See Salem v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against
Discrimination, 404 Mass. 170, 172-174 (1989) (Massachusetts
Commission Against Discrimination and Civil Service Commission
simultaneously resolved separate complaints filed by individual
alleging failure to hire based on race); Dedham v. Labor
Relations Comm'n, 365 Mass. at 400-404 (Civil Service Commission
did not have exclusive jurisdiction over suspension of employee
where claim of prohibited labor practice also could be brought
before Labor Relations Commission). In circumstances where, as
here, an employee's claims focus not on an employer's failure to
satisfy the requirements of G. L. c. 31, § 41, but, rather, on
the employer's violation of an entirely different and separate
statutory mandate, the employee is not required to proceed
before the commission, but may commence a civil action.
Of critical significance in this case is the nature of
Fernandes's claims. The AHA characterizes those claims within
the framework of the civil service law, contending that
13
determinations whether Fernandes was subjected to a retaliatory
layoff or a "lower[ing] in rank or compensation," G. L. c. 31,
§ 41, involve a "just cause" analysis. However, contrary to the
AHA's view of Fernandes's complaint, the substance of his
interrelated claims pertained to alleged violations of the Wage
Act. More specifically, Fernandes asserted that the AHA
intentionally misclassified his position and thereby failed to
pay him the wages to which he was entitled, see G. L. c. 149,
§ 148,6 and that the AHA then terminated his employment in
retaliation for his filing of a nonpayment of wage complaint
with the Attorney General's office, see G. L. c. 149, § 148A.7
Because the central thrust of Fernandes's action was the AHA's
purported violations of the Wage Act, and not its alleged
failure to act with "just cause," Fernandes elected to seek
redress for the harm he sustained by filing an action in the
Superior Court, rather than by commencing administrative
6
General Laws c. 149, § 148, directs "[e]very" employer to
pay an employee "the wages earned" by that employee at regular
intervals and within a fixed number of days after "the
termination of the pay period during which the wages were
earned." When an employee "has completed the labor, service, or
performance required of him . . . he has 'earned' his wage."
Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 460 Mass. 484, 492 (2011).
7
General Laws c. 149, § 148A, states that "[n]o employee
shall be penalized by an employer in any way as a result of any
action on the part of an employee to seek his or her rights
under the wages and hours provisions of [G. L. c. 149]."
Further, "[a]ny employer who discharges . . . any employee
because such employee has made a complaint to the attorney
general or any other person . . . shall have violated this
section and shall be punished." G. L. c. 149, § 148A.
14
proceedings before the commission. Nothing in the civil service
law precluded him from doing so.8 See generally Boston Police
Patrolmen's Ass'n v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718, 719-720 (2002) (we
interpret statutory language according to intent of Legislature
ascertained from its words considered in context of statute's
purpose).
Similarly, nothing in the Wage Act excludes a housing
authority employee from its protections or requires that such
employee pursue relief from alleged wrongful conduct under the
civil service system. "The purpose of the Wage Act is 'to
prevent the unreasonable detention of wages.'" Melia v.
Zenhire, Inc., 462 Mass. 164, 170 (2012), quoting Boston Police
Patrolmen's Ass'n v. Boston, 435 Mass. at 720. See Lipsitt v.
Plaud, 466 Mass. 240, 245 (2013). It was designed, among other
purposes, "to protect wage earners from the long-term detention
of wages by unscrupulous employers." Melia v. Zenhire, Inc.,
supra, quoting Cumpata v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc.,
113 F. Supp. 2d 164, 167 (D. Mass. 2000). To ensure that
employees are not penalized for asserting their rights to earned
8
The AHA's reliance on Camerlengo v. Civil Serv. Comm'n,
382 Mass. 689 (1981), and Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv.
Comm'n, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 586 (1979), to support its contention
that the commission has exclusive jurisdiction over an
employee's claims of unlawful termination is unavailing. As
correctly pointed out by the judge below, those cases did not
involve an adverse employment action that allegedly violated an
employee's independent statutory rights, such as those under the
Wage Act. See Camerlengo v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, supra at 689-
690; Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, supra at 587.
15
wages, the Legislature included an antiretaliation clause in the
Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 148A, to protect employees, like
Fernandes, who complain about violations of the statute. See
Smith v. Winter Place LLC, 447 Mass. 363, 367-368 (2006);
Fraelick v. PerkettPR, Inc., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 698, 704 (2013).
When the Wage Act was first enacted in 1886, it "was
initially limited to employees of a 'manufacturing, mining or
quarrying, mercantile, railroad, street railway, telegraph,
telephone and municipal corporation and every incorporated
express company and water company.'" Melia v. Zenhire, Inc.,
462 Mass. at 171 n.6, quoting St. 1886, c. 87, § 1. Since that
time, however, the Legislature has broadened the scope of the
Wage Act by imposing its provisions on "[e]very person having
employees in his service." G. L. c. 149, § 148. See Lipsitt v.
Plaud, 466 Mass. at 245 & n.8; Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., supra.
An employee claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of G. L.
c. 149, § 148 or 148A, may bring a private civil action ninety
days after filing a complaint with the Attorney General, or
sooner if the Attorney General assents to such suit, for
injunctive relief, damages, and any lost wages and other
benefits.9 G. L. c. 149, § 150. See Depianti v. Jan-Pro
9
The AHA attaches significance to the fact that an
investigator with the Attorney General's fair labor and business
practices division told Fernandes that the Attorney General
lacked statutory authority over complaints from housing
authority employees alleging underpayment or nonpayment of
16
Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607, 611-612 (2013). "An
employee so aggrieved who prevails in such an action shall be
awarded treble damages, as liquidated damages, for any lost
wages and other benefits and shall also be awarded the costs of
the litigation and reasonable attorneys' fees." G. L. c. 149,
§ 150. See Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., supra at 171 n.8. See also
Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165, 178 (2000) (treble
damages are punitive in nature, authorized only where allowed by
statute, and appropriate where defendant's conduct is outrageous
or indifferent to rights of others). There is no provision in
the Wage Act stating that if an aggrieved employee has been
afforded civil service protections, that employee must proceed
before the commission, rather than commencing a civil action.
See Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., supra at 613-
614 (filing requirement of G. L. c. 148, § 150, "triggers no
mandatory agency investigation or administrative adjudicatory
action").
Although both the civil service law and the Wage Act
address wrongful conduct arising in the employment context, they
wages. As the judge below correctly pointed out, the
investigator's understanding of the Attorney General's
interpretation of the Wage Act, which was not equivalent to a
formal agency interpretation, was not entitled to deference.
Contrast Smith v. Winter Place LLC, 447 Mass. 363, 367-368
(2006) (deference given to formal advisory opinion of Attorney
General's office). Further, "the duty of statutory
interpretation ultimately is for the courts." Spaniol's Case,
466 Mass. 102, 106 (2013). See Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v.
Attorney Gen., 454 Mass. 63, 69 (2009).
17
have distinct purposes and, as a consequence, provide different
remedies for the violation of their statutory mandates.
Notwithstanding the fact that Fernandes was a housing authority
employee, we discern no intent on the part of the Legislature to
preclude him from bringing an action in the Superior Court
specifically to vindicate his rights under the Wage Act.
Although the Commissioner of Labor and Industries is authorized
under G. L. c. 121B, § 29, to "determine rates of wages" for
each classification of work performed by laborers for a housing
authority, neither that statutory provision nor G. L. c. 31,
§§ 41-45, address the unlawful withholding of earned wages by an
employer. It is the Wage Act that speaks to and provides
remedies for such prohibited employer conduct. G. L. c. 149,
§§ 148, 150. In a similar vein, the Legislature clearly
intended to sanction severely those employers who retaliate
against employees who complain about purported wage violations.
See G. L. c. 149, §§ 148A, 150. That occurs under the Wage Act.
See id. Fernandes's claims are not ones that require the
special expertise of the commission to resolve. See Columbia
Chiropractic Group, Inc. v. Trust Ins. Co., 430 Mass. at 62.
See also Murphy v. Administrator of the Div. of Personnel
Admin., 377 Mass. at 221. Moreover, their resolution by the
Superior Court does not interfere with the development and
administration of policies under the civil service law. See id.
18
at 222. For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the
Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Fernandes's
claims. The judge did not err in denying the AHA's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
3. Reinstatement to employment. As we have discussed,
G. L. c. 149, § 150, provides that an employee claiming to be
aggrieved by a violation of G. L. c. 149, §§ 148 or 148A, may
bring a civil action "for injunctive relief, for any damages
incurred, and for any lost wages and other benefits." Fernandes
contends that, given the jury's verdicts, the judge erred in
denying his motion for reinstatement to the position of
maintenance mechanic I with full seniority as if he had not been
terminated from employment on May 29, 2009. He argues that the
"injunctive relief" language in G. L. c. 149, § 150, permits the
equitable remedy of reinstatement. We disagree, and conclude
that reinstatement to employment is not an available remedy for
violations of the Wage Act.
Fernandes analogizes the "injunctive relief" language in
the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 150, to language in the
Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute, G. L. c. 151B, which
provides that "[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by a
practice made unlawful under this chapter" may bring "a civil
action for damages or injunctive relief or both in the superior
or probate court." G. L. c. 151B, § 9. Relying on Stonehill
19
College v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 441
Mass. 549, 585 (Sosman, J., concurring), cert. denied sub nom.
Wilfert Bros. Realty Co. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against
Discrimination, 543 U.S. 979 (2004), Fernandes asserts that
while the language of G. L. c. 151B, § 9, like the Wage Act,
does not specifically identify reinstatement as a form of
injunctive relief, courts have recognized that reinstatement is
a proper remedy under G. L. c. 151B.
We acknowledge that reinstatement is an available remedy
under G. L. c. 151B, but it is one that is expressly permitted
by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in
the context of an administrative proceeding under § 5. General
Laws c. 151B, § 5, states that when the MCAD finds that a
respondent has engaged in any unlawful practice as defined in
G. L. c. 151B, § 4, the MCAD has broad authority to take
affirmative action to remedy such unlawful practice, "including
but not limited to, hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of
employees, with or without back pay, . . . as, in the judgment
of the [MCAD], will effectuate the purposes of this chapter"
(emphasis added). See Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm'n
Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. at 563 (primary purpose of
administrative proceeding before MCAD is to vindicate public's
interest in reducing workplace discrimination by deterring and
punishing unlawful conduct by employers). We have said that
20
G. L. c. 151B "provides an aggrieved party with 'two largely
independent avenues for redress of violations of [G. L.
c. 151B], one through the MCAD (G. L. c. 151B, §§ 5-6), and the
other in the courts (G. L. c. 151B, § 9).'" Thurdin v. SEI
Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436, 441-442 (2008), quoting Stonehill
College, supra at 565. See Brunson v. Wall, 405 Mass. 446, 452
(1989). As such, "[t]he remedies available under G. L. c. 151B,
§§ 5 and 9, differ." Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, supra at 442
n.9. The Legislature plainly has articulated the availability
of reinstatement as a remedy for employment discrimination in
G. L. c. 151B, § 5.
Similarly, in other circumstances where the Legislature has
authorized reinstatement as a remedy for unlawful discharge, it
has done so expressly. See, e.g., G. L. c. 12, § 5J (3) (where
employee discharged for disclosing information to government or
law enforcement agency under Massachusetts False Claims Act,
court may order "reinstatement with the same seniority status
[such] employee . . . would have had but for the
discrimination"); G. L. c. 149, § 185 (d) (where employee
discharged in retaliation for disclosing information pursuant to
Massachusetts whistleblower statute, court may "reinstate the
employee to the same position held before the retaliatory
action, or to an equivalent position"); G. L. c. 150E, § 11 (d)
(where employer commits prohibited practice under public
21
employees collective bargaining statute, "hearing officer shall
order the reinstatement with or without back pay of an employee
discharged or discriminated against in violation of the
[statute]"). It is well established that "we do not 'read into
[a] statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to
put there, whether the omission came from inadvertence or of set
purpose.'" General Elec. Co. v. Department of Envtl.
Protection, 429 Mass. 798, 803 (1999), quoting King v. Viscoloid
Co., 219 Mass. 420, 425 (1914). See Dartt v. Browning-Ferris
Indus., Inc. (Mass.), 427 Mass. 1, 9 (1998) (court will not add
language to statute that Legislature could have, but did not,
include). The omission of particular language from a statute is
deemed deliberate where the Legislature included such omitted
language in related or similar statutes. See Thomas v.
Department of State Police, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 747, 754 (2004).
See also Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 439 Mass. 826, 833 (2003),
quoting 2A N.J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction
§ 46.06, at 194 (6th ed. rev. 2000) ("[W]here the legislature
has carefully employed a term in one place and excluded it in
another, it should not be implied where excluded").
Here, nothing in the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 150, permits
a court to order the reinstatement of an employee who has been
aggrieved by an employer's unlawful conduct in violation of
G. L. c. 149, §§ 148 or 148A. We are not persuaded that the
22
Legislature's use of the phrase "injunctive relief" in § 150
encompasses the remedy of reinstatement, particularly where the
availability of such a remedy under other statutory provisions
has been expressly articulated by the Legislature.10 Moreover,
we decline to engraft onto the Wage Act remedies that are
available to an aggrieved employee under the antidiscrimination
statute, G. L. c. 151B. When Fernandes elected to commence an
10
Fernandes's reliance on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (2012) (Title VII), and on
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (2012)
(ADA), to support his claim for reinstatement is similarly
unavailing. Unlike the Wage Act, Title VII explicitly
authorizes reinstatement as a remedy for unlawful employment
practices, and the ADA expressly permits reinstatement as a
remedy for discrimination. Title VII states, in relevant part,
that "[i]f the court finds that the respondent has intentionally
engaged in . . . an unlawful employment practice . . . , the
court may . . . order such affirmative action as may be
appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to,
reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay
. . . , or any other equitable relief as the court deems
appropriate" (emphasis added). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1). See
Che v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 342 F.3d 31, 43 (1st
Cir. 2003) (reinstatement "most efficiently" advances goals of
Title VII by making employees whole and by deterring future
discriminatory conduct by employers); Selgas v. American
Airlines, Inc., 104 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 1997) (remedial scheme
in Title VII designed to make victims of discrimination whole
through use of equitable remedies, including reinstatement). In
like manner, the ADA provides that the remedies set forth in,
among other sections, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 shall be the remedies
available to "any person alleging discrimination on the basis of
disability in violation of any provision of [the ADA] . . .
concerning employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (2012). See Quint
v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 172 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 1999), quoting
Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc., supra at 13 (reinstatement is
"overarching preference" among all equitable remedies under
ADA). See also 42 U.S.C. § 12203(c) (2012) (remedies under 42
U.S.C. § 12117 available to aggrieved persons when employer
engages in retaliation or coercion).
23
action in the Superior Court, rather than before the commission,
to seek redress for the harm he purportedly sustained as a
consequence of the AHA's violations of the Wage Act, he also
effectively elected the remedies that would be afforded under
that statutory scheme. Contrast G. L. c. 31, § 42
(reinstatement may be available for illegal discharge under
civil service law). We conclude that the judge properly denied
Fernandes's motion for reinstatement.
4. Additur. Fernandes contends that the judge abused his
discretion in denying Fernandes's motion for a new trial on
damages or, in the alternative, for additur. Mass. R. Civ. P.
59 (a), 365 Mass. 827 (1974). He asserts that, based on the
testimony of the AHA's financial coordinator, Dianne Precourt,
the proper amount of his lost wages and benefits was $193,750.11
However, the jury determined, after finding that the AHA had
retaliated against Fernandes, that his lost wages and benefits
amounted to $130,000. In Fernandes's view, because the evidence
presented at trial regarding his damages was uncontroverted, the
jury's award was unreasonable and inexplicable, and, therefore,
the judge should have granted an additur. We disagree.
11
According to Fernandes, Dianne Precourt testified that
Fernandes's wages and benefits equated to $75,000 per year.
This sum was the equivalent of $6,250 per month. At trial,
Fernandes testified that he did not earn any income from the
time his severance pay ended (June 15, 2009) until the jury
rendered its verdict (January 20, 2012). Therefore, when
Fernandes multiplied $6,250 per month by thirty-one months, the
result was $193,750.
24
Additur serves the beneficial goal of "securing substantial
justice between the parties without the burdensome costs, delays
and harassments of new trials." Baudanza v. Comcast of Mass. I,
Inc., 454 Mass. 622, 626 (2009), quoting Freeman v. Wood, 379
Mass. 777, 782 (1980). "An additur is appropriate where the
judge concludes that the verdict is sound except for the amount
of damages and that the amount of damages is unreasonable." Id.
at 629-630, quoting Service Publs., Inc. v. Goverman, 396 Mass.
567, 580 (1986). See DiBiase v. Rowley, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 928,
930 (1992) (plaintiff entitled to additur where damages awarded
by jury greatly disproportionate to proven injury). "An unduly
slim verdict, however, may signal the existence of other defects
in the work of the jury, or mistakes by the judge. In such a
case additur would not be appropriate, and a simple new trial
would be called for." Freeman v. Wood, supra at 785-786. See
Proctor v. North Shore Community Arts Found., 47 Mass. App. Ct.
372, 376 (1999). "[T]he allowance of a motion for a new trial
based upon an inadequate . . . award of damages, and the
direction of an addition . . . , rests in the sound discretion
of the judge." Loschi v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 361 Mass.
714, 715 (1972). See Baudanza v. Comcast of Mass. I, Inc.,
supra at 630.
Here, the judge stated that although the $130,000 awarded
by the jury in lost wages was less than the amount calculated by
25
Fernandes, it was not unreasonable. Further, he continued, the
award was not "unduly slim" so as to signal the existence of
other defects in the jury's work that would necessitate a new
trial on damages. Freeman v. Wood, 379 Mass. at 785.
Accordingly, based on a survey of the entire case, the judge
denied Fernandes's motion for a new trial on damages or,
alternatively, for an additur. We conclude that the judge did
not abuse his discretion.
Fernandes relies on the testimony of Precourt to support
his contention that the jury's award of damages was unreasonably
low. However, Fernandes's characterization of that testimony
does not match its substance. At trial, Precourt stated that,
in 2009, she put together information as to how much money the
AHA would save by laying off one worker. She determined that
the value or cost of the employee to the AHA each year "probably
would have totaled about $75,000." Contrary to Fernandes's
understanding, this testimony was not exactly the same as saying
that, as a consequence of being laid off, Fernandes lost wages
and benefits totaling $75,000 per year. Moreover, Precourt's
testimony was not the only evidence presented to the jury
pertaining to the issue of damages. Also admitted in evidence
were payroll documents setting forth Fernandes's wages over
several years. As reflected on the pay stub for the period
ending May 3, 2009, Fernandes's gross weekly pay was $966.76.
26
The jury could have determined that this amount would equate to
approximately $50,271.52 per year, or $4,189.29 per month. If
the jury had multiplied that sum by thirty-one months, see note
11, supra, the total would have been $129,867.99 in lost wages
and benefits, which is very close to the $130,000 in damages
awarded by the jury for the AHA's retaliatory conduct. The
judge properly denied Fernandes's motion for a new trial on
damages or, in the alternative, for an additur.
5. Appellate attorney's fees. In his reply brief,
Fernandes has requested reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
General Laws c. 149, § 150, states that an aggrieved employee
who prevails in an action alleging violations of G. L. c. 149,
§§ 148 or 148A, "shall be awarded . . . the costs of the
litigation and reasonable attorneys' fees." The judge below
awarded Fernandes such fees and costs in connection with the
proceedings before the Superior Court. We now conclude that
Fernandes is statutorily entitled to recover reasonable
appellate attorney's fees and costs with respect to the claims
on which he prevailed. See Yorke Mgt. v. Castro, 406 Mass. 17,
19 (1989). He is directed to file with the clerk of this court
materials detailing and supporting his request for such fees and
costs within fourteen days of the issuance of the rescript in
this case. See Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10 (2004). The
27
AHA will be afforded fourteen days to respond, and the court
will then enter an appropriate order. See id. at 10-11.
6. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of
the Superior Court is affirmed.
So ordered.