Maccormack v. Boston Edison Co‪.‬

Practice, Civil, Jury trial, Retroactivity of judicial holding, Judgment notwithstanding verdict, Disqualification of Judge. Constitutional Law, Trial by jury, Retroactivity of judicial holding. Jury and Jurors. Anti-Discrimination Law, Age, Employment. Employment, Discrimination, Retaliation. Evidence, Relevancy and materiality. FRIED, J. The plaintiffs, Edward R. and Janet MacCormack, sought damages under G. L. c. 151B, § 4 (1994 ed.), from his employer for discriminating against him because of his age and for retaliating against him for seeking such relief. A jury found for the defendant on the age discrimination claim and for the plaintiffs on his claim of retaliation. A Superior Court Judge, treating the portion of the verdict relating to retaliation as merely advisory, ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, found for the defendant on the retaliation claim, and, in the alternative, assuming there was a right to a jury trial, granted judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the jury's verdict on the ground that the evidence of unlawful retaliation was insufficient as a matter of law. The plaintiffs appealed. We transferred their appeal to this court on our own motion. The parties are entitled to a jury trial for retaliation claims and that ruling applies retroactively. The Superior Court Judge was correct, however, that the evidence of unlawful retaliation was insufficient as a matter of law.