Brown v. Mass. Office on Disability

• Decision Date: 21 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–P–1329.,12–P–1329.
• Parties: Kathleen T. BROWN v. MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE ON DISABILITY.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

84 Mass.App.Ct. 1115
995 N.E.2d 844

Kathleen T. BROWN
v.
MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE ON DISABILITY.

No. 12–P–1329.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Oct. 21, 2013.

By the Court (GRASSO, GRAHAM & VUONO, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Before us are cross appeals from a Superior Court judgment that awarded Kathleen T. Brown $342,658 in damages for breach of contract, together with costs, against the Massachusetts office on disability (MOD).¹ Brown asserts that the judge, who heard the case without a jury, used an incorrect measure to calculate damages, did not include the value of lost fringe benefits, and erroneously reduced the damages by attributing an earning capacity to Brown. We affirm the judgment with respect to damages, but vacate the award of costs against MOD.

1. Background. Brown was an employee of the MOD from 2000 until her termination in 2003. Upon Brown's termination, the parties executed a settlement agreement whereby MOD agreed to characterize Brown's departure as a “voluntary layoff,” remove “all warnings” from her personnel file, and “draft a letter of reference in support of [Brown's] efforts to obtain alternative employment.” MOD subsequently breached that agreement by disclosing to Brown's new employer, the Social Security Administration (SSA), that Brown was “discharged for unfavorable employment.” In consequence, SSA fired Brown. After a Superior Court judge granted Brown summary judgment on liability, the case proceeded to a jury-waived trial on damages. At trial, the parties agreed that the breach of contract damages to be determined were prospective only because Brown had received compensation for her loss of employment to that point.

In calculating damages, the judge, as finder of fact, considered the evidence and expert testimony presented and found that Brown would have earned an annual salary at SSA of approximately $70,000. The judge also found that Brown continued to have an earning capacity of $26,000 and subtracted that figure from $70,000 (netting $44,000). He then multiplied $44,000 by nine years, Brown's anticipated future work expectancy, and applied an agreed-upon discount rate of 1.62 per cent to yield a final damage figure of $342,658 (which he termed “a discounted front pay” award). In his final calculation, the judge did not, as requested by Brown, gross up Brown's salary by forty per cent to account for the claimed value of lost vacation and health care benefits. The judge reasoned that to do so would over-compensate Brown...