Plourde v. Police Department of Lawrence (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-037-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     13‑P‑650                                                                              Appeals Court   RONALD PLOURDE  vs.  POLICE DEPARTMENT OF LAWRENCE. No. 13‑P‑650. Essex.     January 7, 2014.  ‑  April 9, 2014. Present:  Katzmann, Fecteau, & Milkey, JJ.   Massachusetts Wage Act.  Governmental Immunity.  Public Employment, Collective bargaining, Compensatory time.   Employment.  Contract, Employment, Collective bargaining contract.  Labor, Collective bargaining, Failure to pay wages.  Police, Collective bargaining, Compensation, Municipality’s liability.  Municipal Corporations, Police, Governmental immunity, Special act.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 26, 2011.   The case was heard by Robert A. Cornetta, J., on motions for summary judgment, and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.     Corinne Hood Greene for the plaintiff. Charles D. Boddy, Jr., City Attorney, for the defendant. Harold Lichten, for Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.       FECTEAU, J.  The plaintiff, Ronald Plourde, a former captain of the Lawrence police department (department or defendant), appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment and the allowance of the department’s motion for summary judgment, by a judge in the Superior Court.  The plaintiff had sued the city of Lawrence for the value of compensatory time that he had earned and accrued prior to being injured on duty in 2006.  He retired due to his disability in 2010 without ever having returned to active duty.  In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the motion judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim under G. L. c. 149, § 148, and G. L. c. 151 (collectively, Wage Act).  Following the allowance of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge denied, confirming his previous ruling that the plaintiff’s Wage Act claim was barred by sovereign immunity and the provisions of St. 1990, c. 41 (Lawrence Act), which established financial conditions for Lawrence.  Because sovereign immunity is inapplicable to this case and because the Lawrence Act cannot be read to negate the defendant’s obligations under the Wage Act, we reverse. 1.  Background.  The summary judgment records contain the following undisputed facts.  The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a police officer from 1985 through 2010.  The plaintiff was promoted to captain in 2002 and remained in that position until he retired in […]

Read more...