Posts tagged "Teradyne"

Kiely v. Teradyne, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-063-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;       13‑P‑505                                        Appeals Court 13‑P‑1217   DEBORAH KIELY  VS.  TERADYNE, INC. Nos. 13‑P‑505 & 13-P-1217. Suffolk.     March 7, 2014.  ‑   June 6, 2014. Present:  Kafker, Fecteau, & Agnes, JJ.     Anti‑Discrimination Law, Employment, Sex, Damages, Attorney’s fees.  Employment, Discrimination, Retaliation.  Damages, Under anti‑discrimination law, Attorney’s fees.  Practice, Civil, Judgment notwithstanding verdict, Instructions to jury.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 30, 2008.   The case was tried before Geraldine S. Hines, J., and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for attorney’s fees were heard by her.     Emma Marion Quinn‑Judge for the plaintiff. Jonathan D. Rosenfeld for the defendant. James A.W. Shaw, for National Employment Lawyers Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.       FECTEAU, J.  These two separately docketed appeals arise from the same underlying case, namely claims brought by the plaintiff Deborah Kiely against the defendant, Teradyne, Inc. (Teradyne), for gender discrimination and retaliation.  After an eight-day trial, the jury found for Teradyne on Kiely’s discrimination claim and for Kiely on her retaliation claim; although Kiely failed to obtain any award of compensatory damages from the jury, they did award her $ 1.1 million in punitive damages.  Acting upon Teradyne’s timely postjudgment motion under Mass.R.Civ.P. 50(b), as amended, 428 Mass. 1402 (1998), the trial judge denied Teradyne’s request for full judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.) but allowed its alternative request to vacate, in its entirety, the jury’s award of punitive damages.  The judge also denied Kiely’s motion for attorney’s fees under G. L. c. 151B, § 9, as she was not a “prevailing party.” Case No. 13-P-505 concerns Kiely’s appeal from the modified judgment, in which she contends that her gender discrimination claim must be remanded for a new trial due to the trial judge’s failure to give certain jury instructions and that the judge erred in vacating the punitive damages award on the retaliation claim.  In its cross appeal, Teradyne contends that the judge erred in denying its motion for judgment n.o.v. as to Kiely’s retaliation claim.  We discern no error in the trial judge’s jury instructions, her decision to vacate the jury’s punitive damages award, or her denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. In No. 13‑P‑1217, Kiely contends separately that the judge erred in denying her postjudgment motion for attorney’s fees […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 6, 2014 at 7:10 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,