DaPrato v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 032218 MASUP, SUCV20153687D

Docket Nº:SUCV20153687D
Opinion Judge:Douglas H. Wilkins Associate Justice, Superior Court
Party Name:Richard DaPrato v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Judge Panel:Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Wilkins, Douglas H., J.
Case Date:March 22, 2018
Court:Superior Court of Massachusetts
 
FREE EXCERPT

Richard DaPrato

v.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

No. SUCV20153687D

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk

March 22, 2018

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Wilkins, Douglas H., J.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF RICHARD A. DAPRATO’S MOTION TO INCLUDE PREJUDGMENT AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THE JUDGMENT

Douglas H. Wilkins Associate Justice, Superior Court

The plaintiff, Richard DaPrato (" Plaintiff" or " DaPrato" ) obtained a jury verdict in his favor and against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (" MWRA" ) under the ADA, c. 151B and the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § § 2601 et seq. (" FMLA" ). The Court later awarded front pay and liquidated damages under the FMLA and attorneys fees under all statutes upon which DaPrato prevailed. G.L.c. 151B, § 9; 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 12205. DaPrato has filed plaintiff Richard A. Daprato’s Motion To Include Prejudgment And Postjudgment Interest In The Judgment (" Motion" ). The MWRA does not contest entitlement to prejudgment interest, but has opposed the request for postjudgment interest. Neither side has requested a hearing. The undersigned presided at trial and at many pretrial stages of this case and now resolves the Motion on the papers.

" [P]ublic employers are not liable for postjudgment interest [under G.L.c. 151B] unless some other statute clearly waives sovereign immunity with respect to such interest." Brown v. Office of the Commissioner of Probation, 475 Mass. 675, 677 (2016) (c. 151B case). MWRA claims to be a public employer for purposes of awarding postjudgment interest by reason of section 7(g) of its Enabling Act. MWRA argues that it falls within this principle and even speaks of a " limited waiver of immunity" in terms that suggest a claim of sovereign immunity in the absence of an express waiver. The court. disagrees, because MWRA is not a " public employer" for these purposes.

MWRA is an independent public authority, created by St. 1984, c. 372 (" Enabling Act" ). Though established as a " political subdivision of the Commonwealth," it is " not subject to the supervision or control of the executive...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP