A Suffolk Superior Court jury on Thursday, October 15, 2026, found for Terrance Williams, a longtime Boston Water and Sewer Commission manager who said the commission paid and promoted him less than white coworkers and then fired him in 2025 in retaliation for his discrimination complaint and lawsuit, Universal Hub reported. The jury awarded $600,000 in actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, and interest of $320,100 brings the total to about $1.3 million.
The $400,000 punitive award against a public agency raises a question readers often ask: can a government body be made to pay punitive damages for discrimination in Massachusetts? Under the state’s antidiscrimination law, G. L. c. 151B, the Supreme Judicial Court has said yes.
The case
The case is Williams v. Boston Water and Sewer Commission, Suffolk Superior Court No. 2284CV00996. According to Williams’s third amended complaint, which Universal Hub posted and we read:
- Williams, who is Black, began working at BWSC on September 18, 1988, and had been Manager of Operations since March 17, 2017.
- He alleged he was “repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less-qualified, less-experienced White coworkers” and paid less than white coworkers “despite performing substantially equal work.”
- He filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in 2021, withdrew it on May 2, 2022 to go to court, and sued in 2022.
- He was fired on May 15, 2025. According to the complaint, BWSC said it fired him because he worked as a civil process server for the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office and served process during his BWSC shift in a BWSC vehicle. Williams alleged that a white employee was not fired for a similar second job.
- The complaint pleaded three counts under c. 151B: race discrimination in pay, race discrimination in promotion, and retaliation. It also named BWSC’s executive director, Henry F. Vitale, as a defendant.
After a trial of nearly three weeks and three days of deliberations, the jury agreed that white coworkers got promotions and higher salaries he was denied, and rejected BWSC’s position that it fired him for “double-dipping” rather than in retaliation, Universal Hub reported. The interest runs from May 2022, when he filed suit, according to the report.
We have not seen the verdict form, so we do not know how the jury divided its findings among the counts, or whether any verdict ran against Vitale personally. We found no other outlet reporting the verdict. BWSC can ask the trial judge to set aside or reduce the verdict and can appeal, and no post-trial ruling has been reported.
Can a public agency owe punitive damages under c. 151B?
Yes. In Bain v. Springfield, 424 Mass. 758 (1997), the city argued that sovereign immunity barred a punitive damages award to a city employee who won a retaliation claim. The SJC disagreed. It held that c. 151B “waives the sovereign immunity of the ‘Commonwealth and all political subdivisions . . . thereof’ by including them in the statutory definition of persons and employers subject to the statute,” and that because the statute “specifically provides for the award of ‘actual and punitive damages,'” the “natural and ordinary reading of these provisions is that the Commonwealth and its subdivisions are liable for punitive damages on the same basis as other ‘persons’ and ’employers.'” Williams’s complaint describes BWSC as “a body politic and corporate and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
That is a sharp difference from ordinary negligence claims against public bodies under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G. L. c. 258, which, as the Bain court noted, “specifically precluded the award of punitive damages.”
The SJC has also held that public employers owe interest on c. 151B damage awards. In Todino v. Wellfleet, 448 Mass. 234 (2007), the court described its earlier decision in DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, 447 Mass. 1 (2006), as holding that “sovereign immunity with respect to the imposition of interest on a G. L. c. 151B damage award has been waived.”
When punitive damages are allowed
Winning a discrimination claim does not by itself support punitive damages. In Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009), the SJC said “a finding of intentional discrimination alone is not sufficient.” Punitive damages “may be awarded only where the defendant’s conduct is outrageous or egregious,” and “are warranted where the conduct is so offensive that it justifies punishment and not merely compensation.” The jury “should determine that the award is needed to deter such behavior toward the class of which plaintiff is a member, or that the defendant’s behavior is so egregious that it warrants public condemnation and punishment.”
The court listed factors the jury may weigh, beginning with “whether there was a conscious or purposeful effort to demean or diminish the class of which the plaintiff is a part” and whether the defendant was aware the conduct “would likely cause serious harm.” On review, courts also compare the punitive award with the compensatory damages; in Haddad, the SJC said a “close to one-to-one ratio” between the two “comports with due process requirements.” In the Williams verdict, the punitive award is two-thirds of the actual damages.
How c. 151B retaliation claims work
- What is prohibited. Section 4(4), as quoted in Bain, makes it unlawful for “any person … to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any person … because he has filed a complaint” under the chapter. Section 4(4A), added in 1989, makes it unlawful “to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with another person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right” under the chapter, as quoted in Bain.
- Start at the MCAD. Under G. L. c. 151B, § 9, which we read at malegislature.gov, a person may go to court “at the expiration of ninety days after the filing of a complaint with the commission,” or sooner with a commissioner’s written consent, “but not later than three years after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.”
- Remedies. If the court finds for the employee, it “may award the petitioner actual and punitive damages,” and it “shall” award “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” § 9.
- A retaliation claim can win even when the underlying claim loses. In Bain, the jury rejected the sex discrimination claim but found retaliation. The SJC noted the employee had a right to bring a complaint, “unfounded though the jury found the complaint to be.”
The other BWSC suit
The commission also faces a separate race and sex discrimination suit by its former human resources director, Mary-Armel Theodat, Universal Hub reported. No trial date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
How much did the jury award in Williams v. Boston Water and Sewer Commission?
According to Universal Hub, $600,000 in actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, plus $320,100 in interest dating to May 2022, for a total of about $1.3 million.
Can a city or public agency be ordered to pay punitive damages for discrimination in Massachusetts?
Yes, under G. L. c. 151B. In Bain v. Springfield (1997), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the statute makes the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions liable for punitive damages on the same basis as other employers.
What do you need to prove for punitive damages under c. 151B?
More than intentional discrimination. Under Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores (2009), the conduct must be “outrageous or egregious,” so offensive that it justifies punishment and not merely compensation.
Do I have to file with the MCAD before suing for discrimination?
Generally yes. Under G. L. c. 151B, section 9, you may sue 90 days after filing an MCAD complaint, or sooner with a commissioner’s written consent, and no later than three years after the unlawful practice.
Sources: Universal Hub, October 16, 2026; Williams’s third amended complaint, Suffolk Superior Court No. 2284CV00996, as posted by Universal Hub. Bain v. Springfield, 424 Mass. 758 (1997); Todino v. Wellfleet, 448 Mass. 234 (2007); and Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91 (2009), read in full. G. L. c. 151B, section 9, read at malegislature.gov. Allegations in the complaint are claims by one party; the verdict may be challenged after trial or on appeal. General information, not legal advice.