The decision as printed

Massachusetts Appeals Court · from CourtListener · released Dec 28, 2000 · 12 pages · 691 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

611 (2000) Ct. 611 50 Mass. App. 
v. Town of Winthrop. Dalrymple 
Winthrop Nancy Dalrymple another.1 & vs. Town of 
No. 98-P-1377.
28, 2000. 9, December Suffolk. December 1999. 
& JJ. Pbrretta, Gillerman, Lbnk, Present: 
Practice, Civil, Evidence, materiality, of conduct. Relevancy Pattern and verdict, verdict, notwithstanding Directed jury, Judgment Instructions to Remittitur, trial, fees, Costs, Attorney’s Attorney’s Damages, Interest. New Law, law, fees, Anti-Discrimination anti-discrimination Punitive. Under
Sex, Attorney’s Municipal fees. Damages, employment, Termination of
Police, Corporations, Discharge. Police.
and retaliation based on employment At the trial of a claim of discrimination
testimony did not rulings objections plaintiff’s on to the gender, judge’s the
any ground for provide reversal. [616-617]
preserve appellate for review properly Defendants in a civil action did not
[617-618], jury to the and respect judge’s claims with to the instructions
right to from the denial of their motions appeal the defendants waived their verdict, notwithstanding where judgment and the for directed verdict for
at the close of all the they did their motions for directed verdict not renew
evidence [618-619].
action, that appeal there no merit to the defendants’ claim on In a civil was
jury confusion. the verdict was the result of [619]
in gender for discrimination on the record of civil claims appeared No basis
ruling denying remittitur judge’s to disturb the employment and retaliation
[619-621], or damages compensatory the of the amount of question on
damages punitive [621]. case, held individu- gender police properly a chief of was In a discrimination
that professional capacity in his ally liable for acts he committed
against police a officer. discriminated [621] 151B, L. c. action was entitled under G. in a civil prevailing plaintiff The
9, the in connection with attorney’s fees and costs to reasonable §
appeal. defendants’ [621-622] 
on in the Court Superior Department Civil action commenced
3, 1995. August 
1 LaMonica, both in his Winthrop, of was sued Angelo police the chief of
individually. and capacity official

612 (2000) 50 Mass. Ct. 611 App. 
Dalrymple Winthrop. v. Town of 
Fremont-Smith, The case was tried before J. Thayer
David A. Robinson J. him) with for the Cipoletta {James
defendant.
Maxine for the Sushelsky plaintiff.
J. This arises out of a award of jury’s Perretta, appeal
and on a compensatory punitive damages brought complaint by
151B, 4, to G. L. c. that Nancy Dalrymple pursuant alleging § LaMonica, the town of and its chief of Angelo Winthrop police,
had discriminated her on the basis of her and against gender
then, when she to the Massachusetts Commission complained
Discrimination (MCAD), retaliated her Against by dismissing
from the force. On the defendants claim error police appeal by
the Court in Ms instruc- Superior judge evidentiary rulmgs, jury
tions, and demals of their various motions the suf- attacking
of the evidence and remittitur.2 We affirm the ficiency seeking
judgment.
1. The evidence. Evidence of the facts was following
After a of received Bachelor Arts degree presented. Dalrymple
m and a Master of Science the fields of science degree political
admimstration, and crimmal she in worked justice respectively,
a until the hired as a bank 1980. That town year, Dalrymple
later, became a reserve officer. Two she years permanent police officer, the first woman to hold that WintMop police position.
attended the and holds certificates of She police academy
of additional courses and in the areas of teaming completion
aid, first of the and fingerprinting, operation breathalyzer,
abuse, of child and sexual sex offenses investigation (rape,
assault).
the testified at about treatment she length Dalrymple
after she became a member of the Win- experienced permanent
force.3 Her male left colleagues magazine police pictures tMop
At the of naked women m desk drawers or on desktops. police
station, some officers watched containing police videotapes
if material and told to out” “get sexually explicit Dalrymple
an she had been she didn’t As of investigation approve. part 
$575,000. of jury Dalrymple damages 2The in the total amount awarded
3, brought August judge The trial instructed 3Dalrymple this action on 1995.
occasions, occurring more jury, any that evidence of event the on numerous
of this action was years prior Dalrymple’s than three to commencement
discriminatory might conduct that have showing pattern limited to a of a of
by and was not period encompassed complaint into the time the continued
damages. any to consideration of relevant

613 (2000) Ct. 611 50 Mass. App. 
Winthrop. Dalrymple Town of v. 
1989, an arrest warrant. obtained in Dalrymple on working early time,4 LaMonica, took the at the warrant a lieutenant Angelo call her if he he found and told her that would from Dalrymple located When LaMonica named in the the individual warrant. and, instead, asked two individual, he not tell Dalrymple the did
make the arrest. male officers to
1989, to cover later, was assigned of Dalrymple A little April as- all the male officers were at the station while the telephones the asked a raid. When Dalrymple to in drug signed participate excluded from she had been participat- why officer supervising raid, raid, and we a having drug the he told her: “We’re in ing
to the can Dalrymple spoke need all the we get.” manpower and also from the raid of about her exclusion then chief police
of selectmen. in a letter to the board her concerns expressed selectmen, Thereafter, an informal conversa- one of the during
tion, she and asked her why his arm around Dalrymple put
that she raid the fact to in a drug given would want participate
informed the selectmen child at home. had a Dalrymple young
in the raid also had had that the male officers who participated
children. the MOAD.5 also filed a with Dalrymple complaint
occasion, assisted in the On another Dalrymple transporta- yet officer, to the arrested another police tion of a juvenile, by
at the station the mother station. When juvenile’s appeared
arrested, an officer to her son had been know demanding why
Dal- informed had occurred because her that her son’s arrest
couldn’t handle the situation a young lady, rymple, “being
??
shift, 1990, work to which In the fall of regular Dalrymple’s
ten and she was changed, she had been for was assigned years,
direct to a shift her under the supervision which reassigned put
the of the had been in on charge night of the same officer who
filed a raid from she was excluded. She grievance which drug
LaMonica, denied under the union contract. He as required with
and her contract remedy the and grievance, Dalrymple pursued
MCAJD. filed another with the complaint
Next, 1991, name from came the omission of Dalrymple’s in
for firearm recertification. a memorandum listing assignments 
acting police chief of in LaMonica the appointed 4The board of selectmen
November, 1989, following year. of the permanent April and chief in
$25,000, damages, complaint on that and was awarded 5Dalrymple prevailed
151B, c. See attorney’s pursuant § fees to G. L. 9. for emotional distress and
(2000). Winthrop Dalrymple, post 1112 v.

614 (2000) 50 Mass. Ct. 611 App. 
Dalrymple Winthrop. v. Town of 
After out the her name on was Dalrymple pointed oversight, put
However, list, an list. unlike other officer on the updated every
her name reference to her without official title. appeared
1991, In was several months into her second July, Dalrymple
and asked that she be to the assigned within sta- pregnancy duty
tion, a had been her which her first request granted during reasons, similar for different and various pregnancy; requests,
had been her male Rather than granted the colleagues. granting
LaMonica, 21, 1991, on her from request, August relieved duty
without filed another with the MCAD pay. Dalrymple complaint
8, as as a court well action. See note As a result of those infra. 1991, 21, she returned to on work and proceedings, September
was the duties within station her assigned during pregnancy.
She the worked within station from 21 September through
18, October 1991.
22, 1991, After the birth of her second child on November
took sick and and then leave Dalrymple personal requested,
three-month, to the town’s a leave of by-law, pursuant unpaid 15, absence. When that of absence on March leave expired
1992, and was a second leave of granted Dalrymple requested
15, 11, 1992, absence until June four 1992. On June before days
leave, the date of her second a let- wrote expiration Dalrymple
ter to LaMonica and the board an ad- personnel requesting
149, ditional leave of absence to G. L. c. eight-week pursuant
105D. LaMonica that he facilitate her would responded §
which the board had to town’s request only personnel authority
grant.
she received no word from the board Although personnel
15, to the of her on June leave did prior expiration Dalrymple
30, not return to on that date. the work On June personnel
board denied her on the basis that she had request already
of her received more than weeks leave as eight maternity part 30, six-month of absence. On that same June La-- leave day,
3, 1992, Monica ordered to for on duty July Dalrymple report
then or face the of action. disciplinary Dalrymple possibility
doctor, letter, 1, her a dated contacted who wrote 1992.6 July
not be The doctor stated in that letter that would Dalrymple 
June, 1992, leave, 6During Dalrymple sought March and while on treatment
right her hand and for pre-existing injury, carpal syndrome, for a tunnel to
earlier, right years hand pain injured in her left hand. She had her about three
discharging police range. three rounds of ammunition at a firearms while over
However, injury she did not the extent of her until several months appreciate

615 (2000) 611 50 Mass. Ct. App. 
v. Town of Winthrop. Dalrymple 
a because of for to thirty forty-five days able to return to work a hand as well as recently to her right work-related injury prior that in her left wrist (tendinitis) condition injurious developed return to work did not related to her Dalrymple was pregnancy. letter to Instead, the doctor’s her husband brought as ordered.
the door to LaMonica’s it under the station and slipped police order, Dal- then issued a second requiring office. LaMonica
15 or to face disciplin- for on July either to duty rymple report
her from carry- that her injuries action. ary Believing prevented
duties, LaMonica did not for duty. out her Dalrymple report ing 8, failure her citing her for five effective days, July suspended that she and to his order obey to return to work on June 15
for on 3. duty July report
to the board of selectmen her Dalrymple appealed suspension
issued her LaMonica on 10. While was July appeal pending,
order, 15 or face further for on duty July another report
her belief that her injuries action. firm in Remaining disciplinary duties, did not her unable to her Dalrymple rendered perform
warned, to the LaMonica recommended for As duty. report
that it initiate to consider taking board of selectmen proceedings
her dismissal including action against Dalrymple, disciplinary 21, the board Dalrym- from the force. On July upheld police
and notified her that a would be hearing ple’s suspension
be conducted to determine whether she should dismissed.
10, 1992, the concluded that On board August Dalrymple
force for “conduct should be dismissed from the police
misconduct which a officer and substantial unbecoming police
affects the interest the efficiency adversely public by impairing
the of the Police Dalrymple appealed Winthrop Department.”
decision to the Commission to board’s Civil Service pursuant
31, G.L. c. 43. §
1, 1994, that On the commission ordered Dalrymple August
that fit to a medical determination she was be reinstated upon 5, 1994, December after return to returned to work on She duty. 
later, attention. right sought side and medical slipped when she and fell on her
syndrome right in her hand. carpal her that she had tunnel Her doctor advised
LaMonica, on by diagnosis, the this appointed After a doctor town verified
6, 1990, to time and medical bills related August granted her benefits for sick
3, 1992, thereafter, August requested benefits for her injury. Dalrymple her on
newly developed as for her ongoing injury, carpal syndrome, tunnel as well
request, that and the board injury, tendinitis in her left wrist. LaMonica denied
upheld the denial.

(2000) 616 50 Mass. Ct. 611 App. 
Dalrymple Winthrop. v. Town of 
medical two examinations.7 Prior to her and suspension
dismissal, record, is, had an that Dalrymple exemplary positive
work evaluations and no disciplinary reports.
2. to It is the defendants’ Objections Dalrymple’s testimony.
claim that each of the three the on their rulings by judge objec-
tions to reversal of the Dalrymple’s testimony requires
judgment.
When asked LaMonica would not her verified why accept
work, medical for not to reason stated that returning Dalrymple
she that the defendants because she had believed were angry
filed discrimination and that to wanted complaints they punish
her for the a so. to was doing Dalrymple’s response question
statement of the rather than an and obvious inadmissible
an ultimate on issue. See prejudicial opinion touching Puopolo
Co., (1996). v. Honda 41 Motor Mass. 96 App. Ct.
was allowed to that she was her al- testify Dalrymple using
lotted number of vacation in order to be days throughout present
to ask the trial on her She was also allowed two complaint.
on behalf of the defendants if they officers who police appeared
trial, at the and both that were on while were. duty replied they
The defendants claim that this evidence “was a and deceptive
treatment.” The evidence effort to show ‘disparate’ prejudicial
not offered to or treatment. We was show past present disparate
the broad of the discretion to think it within range judge’s
to the conclude that had some relevance testimony Dalrymple’s
of and that her cross-examination of the of- question damages
ficers an line of intended to any was inquiry dispel appropriate is, notion that the officers the defendants’ that favored position,
the that to defendants’ voluntarily they appeared support
position.
when As described LaMonica was by Dalrymple, “upset”
to in When asked how she she returned work 1991.8 September,
that she that LaMonica stated knew was displeased, Dalrymple
“[tjhat him heard him he on television and say saw interviewed 
work, Dalrymple’s return to the town physician approved 7After the town’s
had Dalrymple’s concluded that treatment referred her to another doctor who
returning to necessary capable and that she was now of been reasonable and
work.
ruling, jury did not inform the that judge’s Dalrymple with the 8Consistent
a Court order that she be al- pursuant Superior she had returned to work to
assigned duty police within the station return to work and that she be lowed to
her throughout pregnancy.

617 (2000) Ct. 611 Mass. 50 App. 
Winthrop. Dalrymple v. Town of 
this through would follow the town that he “hoped was upset”
or it.” appeal
inadmissible was this testimony that defendants argue The 759-760, 758, 766-767 424 Mass. Bain v. Springfield, under in to the case, mayor sent a letter the that (1997). plaintiff In male to a of a white posi- his she described appointment which and Her letter discrimination.” as “blatant tion she had sought along news detailed in a local publication remarks were other the allegations He labeled plaintiff’s the mayor’s response. with at- “meritless,” of someone “baseless,” an and example as for gain.” the laws rights personal civil “to manipulate tempting
statement that the mayor’s In Bain’s argument rejecting retaliation, the of for her claim basis an evidentiary provided cannot countenance we most emphatically court held: “What
local in the is the mayor’s response of retaliation as an instance
him. The newspaper quoted the charges against to newspaper an the mayor, charges against serious and damaging Bain’s forum, in the same entitled to elected official. He was respond
seemed judgments and to state what political to defend himself
The .... not defamatory so as were long they appropriate but not so is weighty in discrimination interest remedying core to a restriction on amounts as to what justify weighty
Id. at 766-767. political speech.”
the nature of the think Not Bain were only We inapposite.
made under which were they and the circumstances remarks
Bain, for which they the in so also was purpose different very
LaMonica’s concerning offered. testimony were Dalrymple’s as not offered to in was to her return 1991 duty reaction Rather, that was offered act. testimony of a retaliatory evidence
conduct of discriminatory a for the of showing pattern purpose encom- into the time period continued alleged that Dalrymple 3, note supra. her See by complaint. passed
the error in defendants allege The 3. The instructions. jury of the elements gender the on jury refusal to instruct judge’s their written accordance with retaliation in and discrimination conference, no defendants made the the During charge requests. make any argu- nor did they their mention of written requests
to the judge’s proposed or make any objection ment against the defendants the charge, conclusion of At the instructions.
one relating clarification on point and the gave judge requested However, to the instructions. made no objection they to damages.
(1974). The argument Mass. 816 51(b), 365 Mass.R.Civ.P. See

618 (2000) 50 Mass. Ct. 611 App. 
Dalrymple Winthrop. v. Town of 
review, has not been for preserved and we do not appellate
Rowe, 339, consider it. See Clark v. 428 Mass. (1998), 340-341
and cases therein cited.
4. The the sufficiency evidence. In count one of her of that both complaint, alleged (in LaMonica his of- Dalrymple
ficial and the town had discriminated capacity) her against
because of her Count (LaMonica two them gender. charged in
his official with her for capacity) retaliating against complaining
their about conduct. discriminatory
case, At the close of the town filed a motion for Dalrymple’s
a directed verdict on count one of the on the complaint broadly
worded basis that the evidence was insufficient to that it show
had committed or willful and malicious act. any discriminatory
The town did not a directed verdict on count two of the request
LaMonica filed motions as to count complaint. one and count
two, both of which tracked the broad set substantially wording
out in the town’s motion. The made to the only argument judge
at a sidebar conference on the motions to count four pertained
LaMonica, of in his individual Dalrymple’s complaint, charging
with discrimination and unlawful retaliation. The capacity, judge
denied (individu- the motions. Neither the town nor LaMonica
or in his official renewed their motions for a ally capacity) However, directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. the
LaMonica, town and in his official filed a motion for capacity,
verdict, the judgment that notwithstanding arguing Dalrymple
had failed to rebut their evidence that her termination showing
was based rather than legitimate reasons upon discriminatory
and that her of unlawful retaliation was insufficient. proof
On the defendants are more that appeal, specific. They argue
claim discrimination fails because she failed to Dalrymple’s
show that she her was duties “at an performing acceptable
level,” Boston, Inc., Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. 419
437, and, (1995), Mass. 441 as to that her male col- pretext,
treated leagues were See Matthews v. Ocean differently. Spray
Cranberries, Inc., 122, (1997). 426 Mass. contend They 129-130
that claim of unlawful retaliation fails because it is Dalrymple’s
based on circumstantial rather than direct evidence.9
Even that the defendants’ worded motions assuming broadly 
point argue suggest 9On this the defendants that the “cases seem to . . .
necessary” original) that direct evidence in and cite (emphasis is Tate v.
Health, 356, (1995); Department Mental Mass. 365 v. 419 MacCormack of Co., 652, (1996); Melnychenko Boston Edison 423 Mass. 661-662 v. 84

619 (2000) Ct. 611 Mass. 50 App. 
of v. Town Winthrop. Daliymple 
case put close of Dalrymple’s filed at the verdict for a directed
but see made on now appeal, the arguments the before judge
31, Co., 34-35 411 Mass. Ins. Union v. Commercial Bonofiglio 
Mass. by of required specificity (1991) (discussing importance
consider do not [1974]), we 50[a], Mass. 814 365 R.Civ.P. 
Inc., 390 Liquor, v. Gordon’s them. Michnik-Zilberman See
here, where, the defendant’s 6, as that (1983), stating Mass. 8-9
renew the failure to brief and inconsequential, not evidence was
to of the right results in a waiver directed verdict a motion for a
motion, of the as as a waiver of the well from the denial appeal
for judgment of the motion from the denial to right appeal
the verdict.10 notwithstanding
that the verdict jury’s argue The defendants Jury 5. confusion. the about evidence by of confusion brought the result was
to her appeal MCAD complaints, concerning Daliymple’s prior
commission, order she restraining and the temporary the 1991
The The claim is disingenuous. the defendants. obtained against
insisted the defendants who upon that it was shows transcript
to and the MCAD complaints appeal the about informing jury
to not allow the jury that the did the and judge commission
the defendants. See the order against about restraining know
8, note supra. 
their motion for judgment Remittitur. In addition to 6.
verdict, also remitti- sought the defendants the notwithstanding
Mass. 827 59(a), 365 a trial. See Mass.R.Civ.P. tur or new
on the ground not be (1974) (“A solely new trial shall granted
has the are until prevailing party that the excessive damages
as the much thereof an to remit so been first given opportunity
denied the motion.11 The excessive”). is judge court adjudges 
285, Co., 424 Mass. (1997); Springfield, Bain v. 424 Mass. 291-295 Lumber 616, Prod., Inc., 765; Ct. 619 Edge App. Mass. Leading 39 at Prader v.
the upon comment infra, we need not (1996). discussed For reasons
reading of these cases. defendants’
their erroneously denied argument judge that the defendants make no 10The
the against brought ground the that the verdict was a trial on motion for new 
Authy., Bay Transp. Bolton v. Massachusetts weight Compare of the evidence.
654, 657, (1992), to move the defendant failed 658 where App. 32 Mass. Ct.
sufficiency of case but the plaintiff’s at the close of the for a directed verdict
for a new request the defendant’s on the basis of the evidence was considered
weight of the against the ground that the verdict was on stated trial the
evidence.
as there hearing, motion is denied “After judge endorsed the motion: 11The
the I stated on jury’s for reasons justify to the award was sufficient evidence

620 50 Mass. (2000) Ct. 611 App. 
v. Town of Dalrymple Winthrop. 
On the defendants that the appeal, argue award must be greatly
reduced because it “shocks the conscience.”
In award, that arguing Dalrymple’s compensatory damage
$275,000, excessive, is the defendants in a engage three-step
first, recite the facts in the process: they most favorable to light
them and the evidence dispute that their actions caused showing
$75,000; second, to sustain a financial Dalrymple loss of about
Wheeler, 813, read Labonte v. & they Hutchins 424 Mass. 826
(1997), n.17 as that holding awards based compensatory damage
discussed, 824-826, on facts to those therein id. at comparable
$15,000 should fall within the of somewhere range between to
$50,000; third, evidence, and conclude that because the they as
it, recite they showed that far less Dalrymple experienced
Labonte, emotional distress than that endured the in by plaintiff
the award cannot stand. compensatory damage
As discussed this all the throughout defendants’ opinion,
that had some arguments might have relevance to the question
$75,000 of actual financial loss of have failed.12 Dalrymple’s
therefore, We on the basis that the dam- proceed, compensatory
measure, $200,000, in award was for emotional age large
distress.
we do not have the benefit the Although of reasons judge’s
for that the evidence sufficient concluding was to the justify
award, 11, see note his direct reference jury’s supra, to Labonte
in his instructions to the refutes intimation that he was jury any
unfamiliar with and on the applicable controlling principles
concluded, of He could question compensatory have damages.13
we, Labonte, as do that there is in 424 Mass. at 826 nothing
n.17, which that attributable to emotional required damages
$50,000 that, distress be at and on the evidence capped 
record.” The defendants have not furnished us with the recorded reasons
by judge. Although Dalrymple designated transcript referred to the the of the
hearing for inclusion in the record appendix, comply the defendants failed to
amended, 18(b), (1994). request. with her See Mass.R.A.P. as 417 Mass. 1602
She did options not thereafter exercise the available to her Mass.R.A.P. under
amended, 8(b), (1999). as 430 Mass. 1601
argument 12The defendants into this the claim the weave that excessive
nature the by judge’s jury of award was exacerbated the failure to instruct the
discussed, correctly mitigation damages. on the issue of of As previously
however, objection jury the defendants made no to the instructions.
escaped any 13It has not our attention that the defendants did not cite of the
controlling damages on in their requests jury cases either for instructions or
postjudgment seeking their motions relief from the award.

621 (2000) Ct. 50 Mass. 611 App. 
v. Town of Winthrop. Dalrymple 
different from distress was qualitatively Dalrymple’s presented, to that in and more that described Labonte comparable Co., the in v. H.B. Smith 42 Powers by plaintiff experienced 657, 658-659, did (1997) (evidence not Ct. 665 Mass. App. of an remitted award dam- already further reduction of require $750,000 $350,000).14 from to On for emotional distress ages that no basis for the we conclude we have evidence presented, on the the remittitur judge’s ruling denying question disturbing of the damage of the amount award. compensatory
$300,000 in turn next to the award of punitive We jury’s
this is a simple On the defendants’ point, argument damages.
assertion, sentences, that did made in three because noth- they
not should have been awarded. wrong, damages ing punitive
tracked the directives set out in The instructions judge’s America, Gore, also Inc. v. 517 U.S. Labonte. See BMW N. of
559, (1996). the actions 575-583 The of defendants’ is enormity
the those the to enforce law charged obvious: with public duty
it were shown to have violated for deliberately equally
at reasons. See id. 575-580. the Additionally, reprehensible $300,000 award of was not unreasonable damage or punitive
($275,000) in its ratio to the actual harm excessive to respect
the See at found id. 580-583. by jury.
the failed to their burden Because defendants have sustain of
that the abused his discretion or otherwise com- judge showing
law, mitted an error of no basis for his disturbing we have
denial of the for remittitur. defendants’ request
is 7. LaMonica’s There a final liability. argument by
He claims he cannot be liable LaMonica. that held individually
he of for of the acts committed in his as chief the any capacity
The for department. argument fails those Winthrop police
reasons most in Smith & discussed v. recently Beaupre Cliff
Assocs., 480, Mass. (2000). 50 Ct. 492-495 App.
interest, and Postjudgment fees, 8. costs. Dalrymple’s request 
she, presented life-long to that a resident of 14Dalrymple evidence show
community, proud and known to the was the fact that she was the Winthrop of
town, for that she felt appointed police to be a officer the a first woman
to set an that she fired from the force for responsibility example, when was
officer, unbecoming depression, a an she felt humiliated and went into conduct
go reluctant to her home to out that she was so ashamed that she was leave
visible, that community where had been and she previously into the she active
discharge upon had concern about the effect of the cited reason for her such
bitter, angry and family sleep, that she could not and that she had become her
religious finding safety only and solace in her beliefs.

622 (2000) 50 Mass. Ct. 611 App. 
v. Town of Dalrymple Winthrop. 
for interest is denied. postjudgment See Boston v. Massachusetts
Discrimination, 234, Commn. Against Mass. Ct. 39 245- App.
(1995). 246 Because are not we to conclude that the prepared
immaterial, town’s was intended for or not appeal delay,
faith, advanced in her for is good damages also denied. request
is, however, entitled to reasonable Dalrymple fees attorney’s
and costs in connection with the defendants’ see G. L. appeal,
15IB, 9, c. in an amount to be determined in accordance § with
Castro, 17, the set out in Yorke procedure Mgmt. v. 406 Mass.
(1989). 20
Judgment affirmed.