Scott v. Boston Housing Authority10/5/2005
Suffolk.
May 11, 2005.
Present: Gelinas, Cypher, & Trainor, JJ.
Practice, Civil, Appeal, Proceeding after rescript, Interest. Attorney's fees. Anti-Discrimination Law, Damages, Attorney's fees. Damages, Under anti-discrimination law, Interest, Attorney's fees. Interest.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 26, 1988.
Following review by this court, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 287 (2002), a motion for entry of judgment after rescript was considered by Peter M. Lauriat, J.
After we affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Robert L. Scott, Scott v. Boston Hous. Authy., 56 Mass. App. Ct. 287 (2002), the defendants sought further appellate review, which was denied. See 438 Mass. 1108 (2003). Scott then moved in the Superior Court for (1) an award of prejudgment interest, to be calculated from the date on which the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) failed to renew his employment contract or, alternatively, from the date on which Scott filed his complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD); (2) the compounding of any interest award; (3) the calculation of postjudgment interest on his judgment, to include the prejudgment interest; and (4) reasonable attorney's fees following the appeal. The defendants opposed Scott's motion, asserting that Scott had waived any interest-related claim by failing to raise the issue in his response to their initial appeal or, in the alternative, that any deviation from the Appeals Court's rescript would violate Mass.R.A.P. 28, as amended, 378 Mass. 925 (1979).
The judge allowed Scott's motion in part, ordering that prejudgment interest, at the statutory rate of twelve percent, be included in the judgment from the date Scott's complaint was filed in Superior Court. The judge added the prejudgment interest to the damage award and ruled that postjudgment interest, again at the statutory rate, should be added from the entry of final judgment until the judgment was satisfied. He also awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $5,100, and costs of $68.65 for the expenses Scott incurred in opposing the defendants' application for further appellate review and for bringing the motion for interest. The judge denied Scott's motion insofar as it sought (1) compounding of the interest and (2) an award from the date the BHA failed to renew Scott's contract or the date Scott filed his complaint with the MCAD. A "Final Judgment After Rescript" then issued, from which Scott now appeals in part. We affirm the decision of the Superior Court in all respects.
Background
Scott was a contract employee of the BHA whose contract expired in August of 1987. The BHA failed to renew Scott's employment contract. Scott alleged the failure to renew to be on account of his age, in violation of G. L. c. 151B. He filed a complaint with the MCAD in February of 1988, and on September 26, 1988, he filed the present action in the Superior Court.
After three trials over ten years, a jury awarded Scott $173,000 in lost wages and benefits and $45,000 in emotional distress damages against the BHA, as well as $74,000 in lost wages and benefits and $19,500 in emotional distress damages against Robert A. Firth, Scott's supervisor at the BHA. The jury doubled these awards. After the jury's verdict, Scott sought an award of his attorney's fees and costs, and the court awarded him $121,875 in attorney's fees and $3,560.74 in costs. Final judgment entered in the Superior Court on July 3, 1998, and the defendants appealed. We affirmed the final judgment in all respects, and awarded Scott an additional $14,683 in attorney's fees and $200 in costs. Scott's
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|