The Client
In December of 2017, Attorney Greg Connly of DOLAN CONNLY, P.C., was contacted by a woman searching for an attorney. She was a former MBTA trolley operator and a member of the affiliated Union.
When Attorney Connly first spoke with the woman, she informed him that she had been representing herself in a claim alleging discrimination against the Union. She had filed the claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. After reviewing the evidence, the Commission found that there was no probable cause to bring her claim and it was dismissed.
Despite the dismissal, the woman then filed a lawsuit against the Union in Suffolk Superior Court on October 26, 2015. She found an attorney to represent her, but he later asked the Judge to allow him to withdraw from the case. As a result, the woman was again representing herself. She had alleged in the lawsuit that the Union had not advocated for her by failing to take her case to arbitration after she was wrongfully terminated by the MBTA. The woman was a native of Haiti and alleged that this failure by the Union to advocate on her behalf, was based on her race and national origin.
By the fall of 2017, the Union had filed for reconsideration of its Summary Judgment Motion seeking to have the case dismissed. Because of this, the Judge gave the woman a short time period in which to find another attorney to represent her in the lawsuit. The case was too complex for a layperson and she needed an attorney with an understanding of the specific legal issues and caselaw relating to discrimination claims.
Attorney Connly met with the woman just a few weeks before her deadline to find an attorney was due to expire. He reviewed her extensive file materials and concluded that prevailing in the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Individuals from both the MBTA and the Union had allegedly aligned against the woman and would certainly try to discredit her in front of a jury. However, it was also clear to Attorney Connly that if the woman was telling the truth, then she had been the subject of egregious discrimination from some members of the Union.
Attorney Connly believed the woman’s account of the treatment she had been subjected to for an extended time period. He knew that it was important to allow for her story to be told in court. Attorney Connly agreed to represent the woman in the discrimination case and entered his appearance on her behalf in December of 2017. Attorney Connly opposed the Summary Judgment Motion on behalf of his client and it was denied. This meant that the case would go to trial before a jury.
Over the next ten months, Attorney Connly took depositions, defended his client at her deposition, interviewed witnesses, studied personnel records and located an important witness who had relocated to Georgia. Attorney Connly studied the Union’s Bylaws. He also consulted with his client’s physician to better understand the emotional and physical toll suffered by her due to the Union’s alleged mistreatment. Attorney Connly and his client then prepared for trial.
The trial began on October 29, 2018 in Suffolk Superior Court. See our next post for part two of this story.
The Case
The trial began on October 29, 2018 in Suffolk Superior Court. During the trial, the presentation of evidence to the jury lasted six days. The client testified about explicit and derogatory remarks made to her concerning her national origin. There was also evidence that individuals misled the Union membership and that resulted in a vote not to take her termination case to arbitration.
Evidence presented at trial revealed that the membership was told that there were corroborating witnesses to the incident that resulted in the client’s termination by the MBTA. Attorney Connly challenged this important corroboration claim. Through cross-examination of two MBTA employees, he established that the incident had not been witnessed as claimed by the Union.
The jury deliberated for approximately nine hours over a period of three days.
On November 9, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Attorney Connly’s client. The jury found that the Union had discriminated against her based on her national origin when it voted not to take her wrongful termination case to arbitration. Specifically, the Union failed to abide by its own Bylaws and failed to protect the client against an unlawful termination by the MBTA.
The jury awarded $490,500.00 in emotional distress damages to Attorney Connly’s client. Prejudgment interest of $179,771.19 (12% interest per year from the date the case was originally filed in Court) and statutory costs of $285.00 were added to the verdict bringing the total amount of the judgment to $670,556.19.
Despite the victory in the Superior Court, the case was far from over.
The Union then filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and a Motion for a New Trial or Remittitur (a request to reduce the award), which were denied by the trial Judge. In his written decision to uphold the verdict, the Judge noted that the Union did not follow the plain language of its Bylaws in the handling of the client’s termination case. The Judge found that the Union’s process for deciding whether or not to fight the client’s termination was so chaotic and subjective that it left ample opportunity for discrimination to affect the outcome. In denying the Union’s request to reduce the amount of the verdict, the Judge noted that the client undoubtedly experienced acute emotional distress over a period of years.
The Judge then allowed an additional award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $150,000.00 plus $8,733.40 in costs. The total amount of the judgment and fees now owed to the client was $829,289.59.
Despite this second victory in the Superior Court, the case was still not over.
On December 31, 2018, a Notice of Appeal was then filed by the Union in the Suffolk Superior Court. This meant that the issues raised by the Union and overruled by the trial Judge were headed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court where justices would review the evidence and hear oral arguments from both sides.
Meanwhile, yearly interest at a rate of 12% on the original judgment continued to accrue. See our next post for part three of this story.
The Result
The verdict was appealed by the Union to the Massachusetts Appeals Court on December 31, 2018. Attorney Connly personally represented the client during the appeal process, rather than have her hire an appellate attorney. He knew the case and the client trusted him. Extensive legal briefs were filed by both sides.
On March 17, 2020, the attorneys for the parties participated in appellate arguments before three justices of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Once again, the Union sought to have the jury’s verdict finding national origin discrimination and the amount of the verdict overturned. Attorney Connly argued that the evidence supported the finding of discrimination and that the monetary award for emotional distress was not excessive.
On August 4, 2020, a decision came down from the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Appeals Court upheld the Superior Court judgment. Further, the Appeals Court awarded attorney’s fees in the Appeals Court case in the amount of $27,355.00. Post-judgment interest that accrued during the appeal was also added. The total amount of money owed to the client was now in excess of a million dollars.
The Union did not seek a further appeal and finally, the case was over. On November 24, 2020, the Union paid to the client the amount of $1,006,330.03.
This case that was handled by Attorney Greg Connly of DOLAN CONNLY, P.C. went from one on the verge of dismissal, to one in which there was a recovery in excess of a million dollars. No settlement offer had ever been made by the Union prior to the Superior Court trial.
More valuable than money was the fact that the client finally had an opportunity to have her story heard and believed.
