WPCD ; `4=.:7qё%07ԄID** 0\X;,':76 oBZ̪.6T rM? z>_Aے2F8ISn"T6d$|ޝYS}C'_?)f)M3<sx+tkC˴ebJt&oR:,I";m =wwd* ԑ-NtBM,#8Bֿa)=Oy[I~M*~_ެ6d 0 0l 0  0a 05 0 09 0 02 0 0: 0 B 0  0k 01 B* D3" CU D+o 0 0a 06H 0~ 0: 0h 0F(U>nU*U>UBbV^5!QC#$k& 9(M([*M,--/v0v'4J7Q88:<=?J@1BHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:25Y$ !    =wXXdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularQ+D E!U"E#U$E%U&E'(P){*{+{,{-.E/0D12345D6P78[9:;E<E=>E?@EABDCED[EF[GHEIEJKULEMUNEOPEQRESLTUVWXYZ[Ӏ\U]^E_`bfUgae+rtyBarܳ3|xgUTABLE A<:FollowedHype    <6X9`(Courier New0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink             d4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I,-4$ ** ddI  B    ?7%2A`Arial?9.-*  dd9  XXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d++++'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI,-4$** ddI  B    ?7%2A`Arial?9.-*  dd9  XXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS6\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS6\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  '$  =\XXdd=    1    _ԀThedistrictcourtfoundthattheDepartmenthadbreached  itscontractwithLarchwhenitunilaterallyreducedthethresholdatwhichpurchaseordersrequiredBoardapprovalfrom$10,000(thefigureinthecontract)to$1,000.Larchrequestedonlynominaldamages.  Vk$=Xdd=      6    _ԀFederalRuleofEvidence403provides:"Althoughrelevant,  evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence." G '$  =\XXdd=    4    _ԀAlthoughthisopinionpostdatestheForbesepisode,itis  evidenceofthereasonablenessofLarch'sinterpretationofthestatute.  ZS$=6Xdd=      1    _ԀThedistrictcourtfoundthattheDepartmenthadbreached  itscontractwithLarchwhenitunilaterallyreducedthethresholdatwhichpurchaseordersrequiredBoardapprovalfrom$10,000(thefigureinthecontract)to$1,000.Larchrequestedonlynominaldamages.  '$  =\XXdd=    5    _ԀSinceareasonablebeliefthathiringForbesupon_Colella_'s  orderisenoughtoestablishaviolationofthestatute,wedonothavetodecidewhether_Colella_'sconductinfactviolated56.1292-29  '$  =\XXdd=    6    _ԀFederalRuleofEvidence403provides:"Althoughrelevant,  evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence."  ZS$=6Xdd=      2    _ԀTheotherstatutesLarchcitedareMass.Gen.Lawsch.  268A,23(b)(2)(governmentemployeesshallnotusetheirofficialpositiontosecure,forthemselvesorforothers,"unwarrantedprivileges...ofsubstantialvalue...whicharenotproperlyavailabletosimilarlysituatedindividuals");andMass.Gen.Lawsch.150E,7(d)(termsofcollectivebargainingagreementshallprevailovermunicipalpersonnelordinances,bylaws,rules,orregulations).  e   '$  =\XXdd=    2    _ԀTheotherstatutesLarchcitedareMass.Gen.Lawsch.  268A,23(b)(2)(governmentemployeesshallnotusetheirofficialpositiontosecure,forthemselvesorforothers,"unwarrantedprivileges...ofsubstantialvalue...whicharenotproperlyavailabletosimilarlysituatedindividuals");andMass.Gen.Lawsch.150E,7(d)(termsofcollectivebargainingagreementshallprevailovermunicipalpersonnelordinances,bylaws,rules,orregulations). '$  =\XXdd=    7    _ԀAnactuaryestimatedthesefiguresforthejuryattrial. l '$  =\XXdd=    3    _ԀMass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56reads,inrelevantpart:  0  Themayorofacity,ortheselectmenormunicipallightboard,ifany,ofatownacquiringagasorelectricplantshallappointamanagerofmunicipallightingwhoshall,underthedirectionandcontrolofthemayor,selectmenormunicipallightboard,ifany,andsubjecttothischapter,havefullchargeoftheoperationandmanagementoftheplant,themanufactureanddistributionofgasorelectricity,thepurchaseofsupplies,theemploymentofattorneysandofagentsandservants,themethod,time,price,quantityandqualityofthesupply,thecollectionofbills,andthekeepingofaccounts. l ZS$=6Xdd=      3    _ԀMass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56reads,inrelevantpart:  0  Themayorofacity,ortheselectmenormunicipallightboard,ifany,ofatownacquiringagasorelectricplantshallappointamanagerofmunicipallightingwhoshall,underthedirectionandcontrolofthemayor,selectmenormunicipallightboard,ifany,andsubjecttothischapter,havefullchargeoftheoperationandmanagementoftheplant,themanufactureanddistributionofgasorelectricity,thepurchaseofsupplies,theemploymentofattorneysandofagentsandservants,themethod,time,price,quantityandqualityofthesupply,thecollectionofbills,andthekeepingofaccounts. @ '$  =\XXdd=    8    _ԀTheDepartmentdoesnotmakeclearwhatalternativeit  proposestoprejudgmentintereston"theentireamount"oftheaward. G ZS$=6Xdd=      4    _ԀAlthoughthisopinionpostdatestheForbesepisode,itis  evidenceofthereasonablenessofLarch'sinterpretationofthestatute.  '$  =\XXdd=    9    _ԀThestipulationreads:"Thepartieshaveagreedtoresolve  theiroutstandingdisputeregardingtheprejudgmentinterestandnowstipulatethattheCourtshouldawardprejudgmentinterestcalculatedfromJune30,1998,uptoandincludingthedateofsaidamendedjudgment."  ZS$=6Xdd=      5    _ԀSinceareasonablebeliefthathiringForbesupon_Colella_'s  orderisenoughtoestablishaviolationofthestatute,wedonothavetodecidewhether_Colella_'sconductinfactviolated56.  ZS$=6Xdd=      6    _ԀFederalRuleofEvidence403provides:"Althoughrelevant,  evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence." ZS$=6Xdd=      7    _ԀAnactuaryestimatedthesefiguresforthejuryattrial. @ ZS$=6Xdd=      8    _ԀTheDepartmentdoesnotmakeclearwhatalternativeit  proposestoprejudgmentintereston"theentireamount"oftheaward.  ZS$=6Xdd=      9    _ԀThestipulationreads:"Thepartieshaveagreedtoresolve  theiroutstandingdisputeregardingtheprejudgmentinterestandnowstipulatethattheCourtshouldawardprejudgmentinterestcalculatedfromJune30,1998,uptoandincludingthedateofsaidamendedjudgment." !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !X*XXX-XX*     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals-  FortheFirstCircuit X/&X  A') ` dE< ` A   No.002582@XX%JOHNLARCH,Z@*Z@<< Plaintiff,Appellee,@tt)v.  :@@dd WILLIAMC._MADAN_;DIANNEROYALE;FRANK_COLELLA_;NORMAN_MAHANA_;AMOSROBINSON,::@XX%Defendants,:  MANSFIELDMUNICIPALELECTRICDEPARTMENT,Defendant,AppellantA') ` dE<R` A S @*  APPEALHSHFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@@*@@*[Hon.PattiB.Saris,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @@'Before@@((Torruella,CircuitJudge,  Gibson,*SeniorCircuitJudge,   andLipez,CircuitJudge889.98  8& "!% & y! A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       LeonardH._Kesten_,withwhom_Deidre_ԀBrennanReganand_Brody_,  "Z% _Hardoon_,Perkins&_Kesten_wereonbrief,forappellant;s;. "0&   AlanR.Hoffman,withwhomLynch,Brewer,Hoffman&Sands_LLP_ #' wereonbrief,forappellee<s<.  !!*'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   8&!* A` SI&!+ `-@37227`-@S`` 0&&!+ 0`^]M]^_December3,2001_\\ SIDH(#." `-@37227 `-@ S(&!/  (b  b* !""$##$b  bffgA')` dE*` Ag% *J&1 %b'  'b)(  ()*)0  )*+*0  0` (#(#  *+,+0  +,,  ,*Hon.JohnR.Gibson,oftheEig>h>?h?tI=h=IJhJCircuit,sittingbyLKKLM Mdesignation. .  |-(4? ././0' |-(4? '' |-(4? '' |-(4? '0b'L 'b +/'3?   .-  -.1  1[1=\Xdd=1[189y9XXdXXd8:*,X` XX*DW    1:1 ? 1:1 148XyXXX/&4438XXXXo34328XXXXo231 ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .OnFebruary2,1998,theBoardof   CommissionersoftheMansfieldMunicipalElectricDepartmentvotednottorenewthecontractoftheDepartment'smanager,JohnLarch.LarchfiledacomplaintagainsttheDepartmentunderMass.Gen.Lawsch.149,185(b)(the"_Whistleblower_ԀStatute"),and42U.S.C.1983,allegingthathisemploymenthadbeenunlawfullyterminatedinretaliationforhisrefusaltoobeyCommissionerFrank_Colella_'sorderthathehireMichaelForbes,afriendof_Colella_'s,asanapprenticelineman/meterreaderormeterreader.Thecasewenttotrial,andthejuryreturnedaverdictforLarchonthe_Whistleblower_Ԁclaim,awardingdamagesintheamountof$607,977.00.Thecourtaddedattorney'sfees,costs,andprejudgmentinterest.TheDepartmentappealsonnumerousgrounds.Weaffirm.   I.Background  P e  ` FromMarchof1983toJune30,1998,JohnLarchwas 0 manageroftheMansfieldMunicipalElectricDepartment(the"Department"orthe"ElectricDepartment"),wherehewasinchargeofthedaytodayoperationoftheDepartment,includingthehiringanddischargeofemployees.TheBoardofSelectmen,whounderthetowncharterwerealsotheElectricDepartment'sBoardofCommissioners(the"Board"),wereresponsibleforsettingElectricDepartmentpolicy.ThethreeBoardmemberswhovotednottorenewLarch'scontractinFebruaryof1998wereFrankG1N1erald1NPO.OPQeraldQ1_Colella_,Norman_Mahana_,andWilliamC._Madan_._Madan_Ԁand_Mahana_ԀwereelectedtotheBoardinMarchof1996;_Colella_Ԁhadbeenelectedthepreviousyear.LarchaccusedthesethreeCommissionersofacting `,'2 _inconcerttoretaliateagainsthimforhisdecisionnottohireForbes.ThetwoCommissionerswhoopposedthemotionnottorenewLarch'scontractwereAmosM.RobinsonandDianne_Royle_Ԁ(whoreplacedJosephM._Pasquale_ԀontheBoardin1997). ` InMarchof1998,LarchfiledacomplaintinBristolCountySuperiorCourtagainstdefendants_Madan_,_Royle_,_Colella_,_Mahana_,andRobinson,asmembersoftheMansfieldMunicipalElectricDepartmentBoardofCommissioners,allegingthattheBoard'sdecisionnottorenewhiscontractviolatedtheMassachusetts_Whistleblower_ԀStatute,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.149,1R11RSS1185(b),becauseitwasinretaliationforhisrefusaltoperformanact(hireForbes)thathereasonablybelievedwouldhavebeenunlawful.LarchclaimedthatitwouldhavebeenunlawfultohireForbesbecauseunderMassachusettslawthe"managerofmunicipallighting"shallhave"fullcharge"of"theemploymentof...agentsandservants,"Mass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56,andbecauseunderthecollectivebargainingagreementaunionmemberwhoexpressedinterestinthepositionhadpriorityoverForbes.Thecomplaintalsoallegedbreachofcontractandunlawfuldischarge,andsoughtdeclaratoryrelief.LarchfiledanamendedcomplaintinAprilof1998,addingasdefendants_Madan_,_Colella_,and_Mahana_Ԁasindividuals,andtheMansfieldMunicipalElectricDepartment,andaddingafederalcivilrightsclaimunder42U.S.C.1983.InMayof1998thecasewasremovedtotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofMassachusetts.InMarchof1999asuggestionofdeathwasfiledasto_Mahana_. +'2  ` Thecentralissueattrial,whichcommencedonJune26,2000,waswhethertheBoard'sdecisionnottorenewLarch'scontractwasinretaliationforLarch'sdecisionnottohireForbes.Larch'stheoryofthecasewasthat_Colella_ԀhadorderedhimtohireForbes,andthatwhenherefusedtodosoinJune1TofT11996,amajorityontheBoard(_Colella_,_Madan_,and_Mahana_)launchedaprotractedcampaignofharassmentagainsthimthatculminatedinFebruary1UofU11998withthevotenottorenewhiscontract.TheBoardarguedthat_Colella_ԀneverorderedLarchtohireForbes,butsimplyrecommendedhimfortheposition,andthatthenonrenewaldecisionwasunrelatedtotheForbesaffair. ` Duringthetrial,thecourtdismissedtheclaimsagainsttheindividualdefendants,directedaverdictfortheDepartmentonthecivilrightsclaim,anddirectedaverdictforLarchonthebreachofcontractclaim(withnominaldamages).[;[[>[ #  1      ׀The  _Whistleblower_Ԁclaimwenttothejury,whichonJuly5,2000,returnedaverdictforLarchintheamountof$607,977.00.InasubsequentorderthedistrictcourtawardedprejudgmentinterestfromMarch9,1998,andattorney'sfeesandcostspursuanttothe_Whistleblower_ԀStatute.  `"&  ` TheDepartmentthenmovedforjudgmentasamatterof #@( law,foranewtrial,andtoalteroramendthejudgment.ItarguedthattherewasinsufficientevidencethatLarchreasonably '`", believedthathiringForbeswouldhaveviolatedthelaw1@1,1@A;thattherewasAB1and111B1insufficientevidencethathisrefusaltohireForbeswasasubstantialormotivatingfactorintheBoard'sdecisionnottorenewhiscontract;thatthenonrenewalofLarch'scontractwasnota"retaliatoryaction"withinthemeaningthe_Whistleblower_Statute;thatthedistrictcourterredinadmittingintoevidencethestatementsofthedeceasedCommissioner_Mahana_;andthattheawardofdamageswastoospeculativeandshouldbereduced .The   districtcourtdeniedthesemotions.TheDepartmentalsomovedforreconsiderationofthecourt'sorderconcerningattorney'sfeesandprejudgmentinterest.Thecourtgrantedthesemotionsinpart,adjustingthedatefromwhichprejudgmentinterestwouldbeawardedandauthorizingcertaindeductionsfromtheattorney'sfeesaward.ThecourtenteredanamendedjudgmentonOctober20,2000,awardingLarch$607,977.00,plusprejudgmentinterestintheamountof$168,498.84,attorney'sfeesintheamountof$119,265.00,andcostsof$8,523.00.TheDepartmentfiledanoticeofappealonNovember16,2000.  @"   II.SufficiencyoftheEvidence . ` Larchclaims,andthejuryfound,thattheDepartment "& violatedtheMassachusetts_Whistleblower_ԀStatute,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.149,185(b),whichprovides,inrelevantpart:8 `  Anemployershallnottakeanyretaliatoryactionagainstanemployeebecausetheemployeedoesanyofthefollowing: ` x` x 8 `  ... ` x` x 8 `  (3)Objectsto,orrefusestoparticipateinanyactivity,policyorpracticewhichtheemployeereasonably ,`'2 believesisinviolationofalaw,oraruleorregulationpromulgatedpursuanttolaw,orwhichtheemployeereasonablybelievesposesarisktopublichealth,safetyortheenvironment. ` x` x /ThedistrictcourtinstructedthejurythatLarchhadtoprove(1)"thatheobjectedtoorrefusedtoparticipateinanactivity,policyorpracticethathereasonablybelievedwasinviolationofalaw,ruleorregulation;"(2)"thathisrefusaltoparticipateintheactivityplayedasubstantialormotivatingpartinthedecisionnottorenewhiscontract";and(3)"thattheretaliatoryactioncausedhimdamages."TheDepartmentarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidenceforthejurytomakefindingsoneandtwo.  P  ` "Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdenialof[a]motionforjudgmentasamatteroflawdenovo,viewingtheevidenceinthe p lightmostfavorableto[thenonmovingparty]anddrawingallreasonableinferencesinitsfavor.Ourinquiryiswhethertheevidence,whenviewedfromthisperspective,wouldpermitareasonablejurytofindinfavorof[thenonmovingparty]onanypermissibleclaimortheory."FosterMiller,Inc.v.Babcock& @" WilcoxCanada,210F.3d1,7(1stCir.2000)(citationsand  $ internalquotationmarksomitted).Weconcludethattheevidencewassufficienttosupportthejury'sverdict. (a)ReasonableBeliefThatHiringForbesWouldHaveBeenUnlawful  % *  ` LarchtestifiedthathereasonablybelievedthathiringForbespursuantto_Colella_'sorderwouldhaveviolatedthreeMassachusettsstatutes.BecauseLarchonlyhadtoestablishthathereasonablybelievedthathiringForbeswouldhaveviolatedone ,`'2 ofthestatuteshecited,[E[[B[ #  2      ׀welimitourdiscussiontoMass.Gen.  Lawsch.164,56,whichprovidesthatthe"managerofmunicipallighting"shallhave"fullcharge"of"theemploymentof...agentsandservants."[G[[H[ #  3      ׀ LarcharguesthathiringForbespursuantto `  _Colella_'sorderwouldhaveentailedanunlawfulsubstitutionof_Colella_'sjudgmentforhisown.TheDepartmentassertsthat_Colella_ԀneverorderedLarchtohireForbes,butsimplyrecommended `  Forbesforthepositions. ` Therewasampleevidenceattrialtosupportajuryfindingthat_Colella_ԀhadorderedLarchtohireForbes.OnMarch5,1996,theBoardvotedtoauthorizeanewpositionforanapprenticelineman/meterreader.BetweenMarch5andJune3,1996,_Colella_indicatedtoLarchonatleastthreeoccasionsthatheexpected1V1Michael1V1Forbes,afriendandcoworkerof_Colella_'s,tobehiredforthe P newposition.WhileitwascommonforCommissionerstorecommendpeopleforopenpositions,Larchtestifiedthathebelieved_Colella_wasorderinghimtohireForbes.LarchtestifiedthathehaddecidednottohireForbes"aslongas[_Colella_]wastellingmetohirehim." ` Larchdidnotpostthenewpositionwhenitwasauthorized,believingthat"weweregoingtohaveaproblem"when_Colella_ԀfoundoutthatForbeswasnotgettingthejob.AtthebeginningofJune,however,LarchlearnedthatShawn_Curran_,ameterreaderintheDepartment,haddecidedtobidfortheposition.Larchbelievedthat_Curran_'sbidwouldgethim"offthehook"with_Colella_Ԁbecausetheunioncontractstipulatedthatmembersofthebargainingunithadabsolutepreferenceforopenpositions.AftertheJune3Boardmeeting,heinformed_Colella_thatthenewpositionwouldgoto_Curran_._Colella_Ԁtestifiedthathewasupsetbythisnews. ` Thenextday,_Colella_Ԁindicatedto_Kym_Ԁ_Gaissl_,theDepartment'sBusinessManager,thattheSelectmen/Commissionerswerethe"townfathers,"aphrasewhich,_Gaissl_Ԁtestified,theCommissionersoftenusedtoindicate"thattheyhadtherighttotellpeoplewhattodoandhowtodoit."OnJune6,_Mahana_Ԁtold_Gaissl_Ԁthat_Colella_Ԁwas"veryupset"aboutForbesnotgettingthejob,anddeclared:"Wearethetownfathersandpeopleshoulddowhatwetellthemtodo."Thejurycouldreasonablyhavetakenthesestatementsasevidenceofanorderratherthanarecommendation. +'2 _ ` AroundJune14,_Colella_ԀdeliveredasecondjobapplicationfromForbesto_Gaissl_,thistimeforeithertheapprenticelineman/meterreaderposition,orthemeterreaderpositionwhichwouldopenupif_Curran_Ԁwashiredintothenewposition.OnJune18,_Colella_ԀindicatedtoLarchthat"hewasoneofthetownfathersandthetownfathershadtherighttohavewhotheywantedtohirehired."Larchdecided,however,thattherewasnotenoughworktojustifyfillingthemeterreaderposition._Colella_Ԁwasangryanddisappointedwhenheheardthisnews.JustbeforetheJune26meetingoftheBoard,_Mahana_ԀsaidtoLarchthatheand_Gaissl_Ԁhadupset_Colella_,andthat"heortheyweregoingtomakeourlivesmiserableuntilwemade[_Colella_]happyagain." The 0 jurycouldreasonablyhaveconcludedthatthepersistentcriticismofandinterferencewithLarch'smanagementoftheDepartmentafterhisdecisionnottohireForbes(seeinfra)wasevidencethatLarch  haddisobeyedanorderratherthanmerelyneglectingtoadoptarecommendation.     ` TheDepartmentofferedevidencethatLarchhadalongstandingpolicyofgrantinganinterviewtoanyjobcandidateaBoardmemberrecommended,andthathehadsometimeshiredsuchcandidatesinthepast.Thecourt'sinstructiontothejurymadecleartheBoard's"recommendation"theory:"thestatutedoesnotprohibitjobrecommendationsbyaselectmanorcommissioner.ItisuptoyoutodecidewhetherthestatementorstatementsmadebyselectmenwereorderstohireMr.Forbesorrecommendations."Sincethecourtproperlyframedtheissueforthejury,arejection +'2 oftheDepartment's"recommendation"theoryisimplicitinthejury'sverdictforLarch. X    @  ` Evenif_Colella_ԀdidorderLarchtohireForbes,theDepartmentarguesthatLarchcouldnothavereasonablybelievedthathiringForbespursuantto_Colella_'sorderwouldhaveviolatedMass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56,becausethestatutebarstheBoard,    notindividualBoardmembers,frominterferingwiththemanager'spowertohireanddischargeemployees.TheDepartmentcites_Golubek_v.WestfieldGas&ElectricLightBoard,591N.E.2d682, 0  683(Mass.App.Ct.1992),forthepropositionthatMass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56isnotviolatedunlessaboardactioninfringeson P theprerogativesofthemanager._Golubek_doesnot,however, 0 supportthatreadingofthestatute.Itissimplyacasewherean p actionbytheboardwasfoundtohaveviolatedthestatute._Golubek_statesthatunder56thehiringpoweris"vestedinthe  manageralone."Id.at684(emphasisadded).Thetown'sown  p counsel,moreover,advisedtheBoardonSeptember4,1997,that"[_t]he_Ԁ[Electric]Departmentmanagerhasexclusiveauthoritytohireanddischargeemployees."[=[[J[ #  4      ׀Inlightof_Golubek_,theopinion  $ oftowncounsel,andtheplainlanguageofthestatute(managerofmunicipallightingshallhave"fullcharge"ofhiringemployees), thejurycouldhavefoundthatLarchreasonablybelievedthatto % * hireForbesat_Colella_'sdirectionwouldhaveviolatedMass.Gen.Lawsch.164,56.[?[[L[ #  5      ׀ @   ` TheDepartmentsuggeststhatLarch'sfailuretotell   _Colella_ԀthatitwouldbeillegaltohireForbespursuanttohisorderindicatesthatLarchdidnotbelievehewasbeingaskedtodoanythingillegal.Thejurycouldhavefound,however,thatLarchkeptthisbelieftohimselftoavoidaconfrontationwith_Colella_. `   (b)SubstantialorMotivatingFactorintheDecisionNottoRenew     ` TheDepartmentarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidencethatLarch'sdecisionnottohireForbeswasasubstantialormotivatingfactorinthedecisionnottorenewhiscontract.ViewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletoLarch,anddrawingreasonableinferencesinLarch'sfavor,thereisampleevidencetosupportajuryfindingthattheBoardmadeitsnonrenewaldecisioninretaliationforLarch'srefusaltohireForbes.SeeFosterMiller,210F.3dat7. p  ` OnJune4,1996,thedayafter_Colella_ԀlearnedthatForbeswouldnotbegettingtheapprenticelineman/meterreaderposition,_Colella_Ԁcalled_Gaissl_ԀandsaidthathewantedtocancelthepurchaseofabackhoefortheDepartmentwhichtheBoardhadapprovedunanimouslyattheJune3meeting._Colella_Ԁsaidto_Gaissl_:"John'sdoneittomeagain,he'snotgoingtohirethiskid....I'mlookinglikeanidiot....I'mreally,really `'", DW  De D  mad."Thatsameday,_Colella_ԀtoldGary_D'Ambra_,anElectricDepartmentemployee,thathewasupsetandfrustratedthatLarchhaddecidednottohireForbes,andthathewas"alldonewithJohnLarch."OnJune6_Mahana_,whowasoftenseenpassingtimewith_Colella_Ԁand_Madan_Ԁatalocalpubandoutsidealocalicecreamstore,told_Gaissl_Ԁthat_Colella_Ԁwas"veryupset"aboutForbesnotgettingthejob.An"extremelyirate"_Mahana_Ԁcommunicatedwith_Gaissl_ԀagainonJune10,tellingherthat"hedidn'tknowwhothehellJohnLarchthoughthewas,buthe'dbeendoingithiswayforalongtimeandthatwasn'tgoingtohappenanymore...thathewouldkickhis_ass_Ԁoutoftownand...makelifemiserableforthedepartment."_Mahana_Ԁtold_Gaissl_Ԁthathewouldtakeawaythebackhoe,takeawayLarch'scarallowance,relocatetheofficestaff,andstopallovertimeintheDepartment. ` Larch,_Gaissl_,andCommissioner_Pasquale_Ԁtestifiedthat,incontrasttopreviousBoardmeetings,whichhadbeenprofessionalandbusinesslike,thetoneoftheJune26BoardmeetingwashostileandantagonistictowardLarch.Mostofthemeetingwasdevotedto_Colella_,_Mahana_Ԁand_Madan_ԀgrillingLarchaboutallegedproblemsintheDepartment._Colella_ԀquestionedLarchaboutprovisionsinhiscontractprovidingforlifeinsuranceandavehicleforhisofficialuse,andmovedtoreversetheBoard'searlierdecisiontopurchaseabackhoefortheDepartment._Mahana_ԀinterrogatedLarchabouttheDepartment'slongstandingpracticeofmakingpaymentstotheTown,suggestedthattheDepartmentshouldbemovedoutofitsofficecondominium,criticizedLarchforgeneratingtoomuch +'2 revenue,questionedthegrantingofpreferentialelectricratestothehighschool,andmentioned("Ijustwantthepublictoknow")adebttheDepartmentowed._Madan_ԀthenquestionedLarchaboutallegedelectricalproblemsintheindustrialpark. ` Insubsequentmeetings,theBoardcontinuedtoundercutLarch'sauthoritytoruntheDepartment.OnOctober7,1996,theBoardvotedtorequireitsapprovalforcontractswithoutsideconsultantsandpurchaseordersover$1,000,andtoputtheDepartment'snonunionemployeesundertheTown'spersonnelpolicy.OnNovember4,1996,_Madan_Ԁand_Colella_ԀsuggestedthattoomanyDepartmentemployeeshadcellphonesandbeepers,and_Colella_Ԁsaidhewantedthenumberofcellphonesreducedtothree.OnApril2,1997,_Madan_ԀquestionedtheDepartment'sprovisionofbottledwatertoitsemployees. ` OnMay5,1997,theBoarddeniedLarch'srequestthatanemployeewhowasperformingtwojobsatthesametimereceiveawageincreaseof$2perhour,andvotedtohavetheTown'saccountantdo1C11C1theDepartment'sbooks.OnMay15,1997,theBoardencouragedaDepartmentemployeetoappealanadversepersonneldecisiontotheTownManager.OnJune2,1997,_Colella_Ԁdeclaredthathewas"veryupset"thattwoDepartmentemployeeshadbeendeniedvacationtime(becauseotheremployeeshadrequestedthesamedates),andindicatedthattheBoardshouldmakefinaldecisionsconcerningvacationtimeintheDepartment.OnSeptember29,1997,theBoardvotedtoeliminateallscheduledovertimeintheDepartment,exceptwiththeapprovaloftheChairmanofthe +'2 Board.OnJanuary12,1998,_Madan_ԀcriticizedLarchforlettingDepartmentemployeesgohomeearlyonDecember24. ` OnFebruary2,1998,theBoardvotednottorenewLarch'scontract.Atthemeeting,_Madan_Ԁexplainedsimplythattherehadbeen"alotofmismanagement"intheElectricDepartment.Although_Madan_ԀwasmorespecificattrialaboutthereasonsfornotrenewingLarch'scontract,therewasevidencethattheexplanationswere_pretextual_._Madan_ԀpointedtotheDepartment'slackofapersonnelpolicy,buttherewasevidencethattheDepartmentusedtheTown'spersonnelpolicy,withafewexceptions,andthattheBoardknewofthispractice._Madan_Ԁcitedoutagesintheindustrialpark,buttherewasevidencethattheseproblemswereminor._Madan_ԀtestifiedthattheBoardwasconcernedabouttheDepartment'sfinances,buttherewasevidencethattheDepartmenthadsubstantialaccumulatedprofits($8,000,000asofApril1997),thatrelativelymodestlossesin1996and1997wereduetoaratecutdesignedtoreducetheDepartment'sprofitsandtounexpectedevents,andthata1997financialauditstatedthat"theDepartmentisingoodfinancialshapeandismanagedwell."_Madan_Ԁcitedanemployee'stheftof$500fromtheDepartment,buttherewasevidencethatthedetectionofthissmalltheftindicatedthatthetheftdetectionsystemwasfunctioningasitshould._Madan_ԀalsocriticizedLarch'shandlingofahostileworkenvironmentclaimbyanemployee,RoseMcCarthy,againstBusinessManager_Gaissl_,butLarchtestifiedthattheTown'slaborcounselhadindicatedthatsomeoftheincidentsweretoofarbackintimetoacton,andhadrecommendedthatLarch +'2 awaittheresultsofMcCarthy'slitigationagainsttheDepartmentbeforedecidinghowtoproceed. @  ` Insum,thejurycouldreasonablyhaveconcludedthatthepersistentcriticismofLarch'smanagementoftheDepartment,startingwiththeJune26,1996,meetingandculminatingwiththenonrenewaldecisiononFebruary2,1998,amountedtotheBoardmajoritymakinggoodonthethreat,issuedatthetimeofLarch'sdecisionnottohireForbes,to"makelifemiserableforthedepartment"and"kick[Larch's]_ass_Ԁoutoftown,"andthatthereasonstheDepartmentofferedfornotrenewingLarch'scontractwere_pretextual_.  P   III.NonRenewalasRetaliatoryAction  0 y ` TheDepartmentarguesthatthedecisionnottorenewLarch'scontractdoesnotconstitutethe"retaliatoryaction"proscribedbythe_Whistleblower_ԀStatute.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.149,185(b).Thestatutedefines"retaliatoryaction"as"thedischarge,suspensionordemotionofanemployee,orotheradverseemploymentactiontakenagainstanemployeeinthetermsandconditionsofemployment."Id.,185(a)(5).  TheDepartment  !p$ arguesthatnonrenewalofanemploymentcontractdoesnotfallunderthestatutorydefinition. ` TheDepartmenthaswaivedthisargument,whichfirstappearedinitsrenewedmotionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw:8 ` ArenewedmotionforjudgmentasamatteroflawunderRule50(b),likethesimilarmotionmadeunderRule50(a)beforethesubmissionofthecasetothejury,muststatethegroundsonwhichitwasmade.Sincethepost ,`'2 submissionmotionisnothingmorethanarenewaloftheearliermotionmadeatthecloseofthepresentationoftheevidence,itcannotassertagroundthatwasnotincludedintheearliermotion. ` x` x  }9ACharlesAlanWright&ArthurR.Miller,1DD1FederalPracticeand `  Procedure1DD125371E,at34445E1(2ded.1994)(footnotesomitted);  @ accord_Correa_v.HospitalSanFrancisco,69F.3d1184,1196(1st    Cir.1995)("The_movant_Ԁcannotuse[arenewedmotionforjudgmentasamatteroflaw]% @ %@asavehicletointroducealegaltheorynotdistinctlyarticulatedinitscloseofevidencemotionforadirectedverdict.").TheDepartmentrightlypointsoutthat"whethertherehadbeenretaliation"wasacentralissueattrial,butneglectstomentionthatuntiltheDepartment'spostverdictmotionithadplayedoutasafactualissue,notalegalone.We p alsonotethattheDepartmentfailedtoobjecttothejuryinstructiononretaliation,whichstated:"Adecisionnottorenewanemploymentcontractisanadverseemploymentactionunderthestatute."Infailingtobringitscontraryreadingofthestatutetothecourt'sattentionuntilaftertheverdicthadbeenrendered,theDepartmentwaivedtheargumentitnowseekstoadvance.  IV.Admissionof_Mahana_'sStatements @p  `"&   ` TheDepartmentarguesthatthedistrictcourterredin @$( admittingthestatementsofthedeceasedCommissioner_Mahana_,suchas"[_w]e_Ԁarethetownfathersandpeopleshoulddowhatwetellthemtodo,"andthat"hewouldkick[Larch's]_ass_Ԁoutoftownand...makelifemiserableforthedepartment."Thedistrictcourtadmitted_Mahana_'sstatementsasadmissionsoftheDepartment, ,`'2 pursuanttoFed.R._Evid_.801(d)(2)(D),whichexcludesfromthehearsayrulestatementsofferedagainstapartyandmade"bytheparty'sagentorservantconcerningamatterwithinthescopeoftheagencyoremployment,... duringtheexistenceofthe `  relationship."TheDepartmentarguesthat_Mahana_'sstatementsdonotqualifyas_nonhearsay_ԀunderRule801(d)(2)(D)becausethreateningthemanageroftheElectricDepartmentinthisfashionwasnotwithinthescopeofhisemployment.ItpointsoutthatthestatementswereneitherauthorizedbytheDepartmentnormadeforthepurposeoffurtheringitsinterests. ` Wereviewadistrictcourt'sadmissionofevidenceforabuseofdiscretion.SeeUnitedStatesv.Gilbert,181F.3d152, 0 160(1stCir.1999).Therewasnoabuseofdiscretionhere:8 ` Toqualifyas_nonhearsay_ԀunderRule801(d)(2)(D),astatementmustconcern"amatterwithinthescope"ofthe_declarant_'sagencyoremployment.Thestatementitselfisnotrequiredtobe"withinthescopeofthe_declarant_'sagency.Rather,itneedonlybeshownthatthestatementberelatedtoamatterwithinthescopeoftheagency." ` x` x 5JackB.Weinstein&MargaretA.Berger,1FF1Weinstein'sFederal  X# Evidence1FF1,801.33[2][c]1G,at80169G1(2ded.2001)(footnotes !% omitted).While_Mahana_'sjobdescriptionobviouslydidnotincludemakinglifemiserablefortheElectricDepartment,thestatementswererelatedtoamatterwithinthescopeofhisemployment:oversightoftheDepartment.SeeWhitev.Honeywell,Inc.,141 '(#- F.3d1270,1276(8thCir.1998)(supervisor'sracialsluragainstemployeeadmissibleagainstemployerasstatement"concerningamatterwithinthescopeoftheemployment"underFed.R._Evid_. ,'3 801(d)(2)(D)).Thedistrictcourtproperlyadmitted_Mahana_'sstatementsas_nonhearsay_ԀunderRule801(d)(2)(D).  V.TheSexualHarassmentEvidence    x ` TheDepartmentarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinexcludingcertaindetailsofthesexualharassmentallegationsagainstBusinessManager_Gaissl_Ԁthat_Madan_ԀcitedasareasonfornotrenewingLarch'scontract.TheexcludedtestimonywasthatDepartmentemployeeshaddiscussedthesmellofsemen.AlthoughthecourtadmittedtestimonyaboutotherallegedsexuallychargedconductattheDepartment,itconcludedthatthetestimonyitdecidedtoexcludewouldbe"justtoomuchforajury."TheDepartmentalsoarguesthatitshouldhavebeenpermittedtoask_Gaissl_Ԁifshewaspersonallyinvolvedintheallegedincidents,andtoaskLarchwhether_Gaissl_Ԁhadacknowledgedthetruthofsomeoftheallegations. ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sexclusionofevidenceunderFed.R._Evid_.403forabuseofdiscretion.7[A[[M[77<7 #  6      ׀SeeUnited P  Statesv._Reeder_,170F.3d93,107(1stCir.1999)."'[_O]nly_ " rarelyandinextraordinarycircumstanceswillwe,fromthevistaofacoldappellaterecord,reverseadistrictcourt'son thespotjudgmentconcerningtherelativeweighingofprobative @$( valueandunfaireffect.'"Id.(quotingWilliamsv.Drake,146  F.3d44,47(1stCir.1998)(alterationinoriginal)).  ` ThedistrictcourtadmittedtheevidenceofsexualharassmentforthelimitedpurposeofpermittingtheDepartmenttoestablishthefactorsthatinfluencedtheBoard'sdecisionnottorenewLarch'scontract.Thecourtweighedtheprobativevalueoftheevidenceagainstthepotentialforunfairprejudice,andletinalmostallofthesexualharassmentallegations.ItdeclinedtolettheDepartmentinquireinto_Gaissl_'spersonalinvolvementintheincidents,onthegroundthat"we'renotgoingtohaveminitrialsoneachoneofthoseallegations."Therewasnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'sdecisionnottoconducta"minitrial"ontheissueofsexualharassment,orinitsexclusionofsomelimitedtestimonyonthatissuethatitbelievedwouldbeundulyprejudicialtoLarch.Indeed,theargumenttothecontraryisfrivolous.   VI.ExcessiveDamages      ` TheDepartmentarguesthatitwaserrortoawarddamages " basedontheassumptionthatLarch'scontractwouldbereneweduntilhereachedtheageof65.ItnotedthatLarchhadworkedunderaseriesoftwoandthreeyearcontracts,whichtheBoardcouldelectnottorenewwithorwithoutcause.TheDepartmentthereforesuggeststhatthepropermeasureofdamageswouldbeoneadditionalemploymentcontract. ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdecisionnottoreducethe *%0 jury'sawardofdamagesforabuseofdiscretion._Blinzler_v. ,`'2 Marriott_Int'l_,Inc.,81F.3d1148,1161(1stCir.1996)."An  awardofdamageswillnotbedeemedunreasonablyhigh...aslongasitcomportswithsomerationalappraisalorestimateofthedamagesthatcouldbebasedontheevidencebeforethejury,"andisnot"grosslyexcessive,inordinate,shockingtotheconscienceofthecourt,orsohighthatitwouldbeadenialofjusticetopermitittostand."Id.(citationsandinternalquotationmarks `  omitted). ` TheDepartmentarguesthattheawardofdamagesbeyondtheperiodofoneadditionalemploymentcontractshouldbeoverturnedbecauseitwas"necessarilyspeculative."However,theSupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts("_SJC_")hasstatedthat"thelawoftheCommonwealthhastraditionallyallowed,asanelementoftortdamages,compensationforthelossofcapacitytogenerateprospectiveearnings.Mereuncertaintyintheawardofdamagesisnotabartotheirrecovery...."Conwayv.Electro  p SwitchCorp.,523N.E.2d255,257(Mass.1988)(citationand   footnoteomitted)(interpretingtheMassachusettsemploymentdiscriminationstatute).Thisprincipleappliesunderthe_Whistleblower_ԀStatute,whichprovidesthat"[_a]ll_Ԁremediesavailableincommonlawtortactionsshallbeavailabletoprevailingplaintiffs."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.149,185(d). % *  ` InKelleyv.AirborneFreightCorp.,140F.3d335(1st '`", Cir.1998),weupheldanawardof$1,000,000infrontpaydamagesundertheMassachusettsemploymentdiscriminationstatute,Mass.Gen.Lawsch.151B,9.Weexplained: +'2 8 ` Anawardoffrontpay,constitutingasitdoes,anestimateofwhataplaintiffmighthaveearnedhads/hebeenreinstatedattheconclusionoftrial,isnecessarilyspeculative.Massachusettslawisclearthatuncertaintyintheawardoffuturedamagesdoesnotbartheirrecovery,andwehavesaidthatthegenerousnessofajury'sawarddoesnotalonejustifyanappellatecourtinsettingitaside[unless]itisshowntoexceedanyrationalappraisalorestimateofthedamages. ` x` x mId.at355(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted);see (  alsoCummingsv.TheStandardRegisterCo.,265F.3d56(1stCir. h  2001)(upholdinganawardof14yearsoffrontpayunderMassachusettslaw). ` Althoughthe_SJC_ԀinConwaycautionedthat"damagesmay h notbedeterminedbyspeculationorguess,"523N.E.2dat257,thejury'sawardof$607,977incompensatorydamageswasbasedonevidencepresentedattrial. Larchwas55yearsoldwhenhis  employmentterminatedinJuneof1998.HehadservedasmanageroftheElectricDepartmentfor15yearsunderaseriesoftwoandthreeyearcontracts.Thelastthreecontractscontainedaclausethatwouldautomaticallyrenewthecont1WrW1actforanadditionaltwoorthreeyeartermunlesstheBoardgavenoticeofnonrenewal  !% withinfourmonthsofthecontract'send.LarchtestifiedthathehadintendedtoworkattheElectricDepartmentuntilhereachedtheageof65. ` LarchhadreceivedpositiveevaluationsofhisjobperformanceinDecember1XofX11993andJanuary1YofY11995.Commissioner_Pasquale_ԀtestifiedthathehadratedLarch"aboveaverage"inmostcategories.Commissioner_Royle_ԀalsotestifiedthatLarchhadbeen ,'3 performingwell.Larchtestifiedthathiseffortstoobtainnewemploymentduringthetimebetweenhisterminationandthetrial(hecitedspecificpositionsforwhichhehadapplied)hadbeenunsuccessful.Hetestifiedthatbecauseofderegulation,utilitieswerelayingoffemployeesratherthanhiring,andthatthecurrentphaseofderegulationwouldcontinuefor10years. ` TherewasalsoevidencethatthenonrenewalofLarch'scontractand_Madan_'schargeof"alotofmismanagement"intheDepartmentwerereportedinthelocalmedia._Pasquale_,ahumanresourcesprofessional,testifiedthatprospectiveemployerswouldlikelytakeintoaccounttheallegationsofmismanagementsurroundingtheterminationofLarch'stenureattheDepartment. ` Basedonthisevidence,areasonablejurycouldhavefound,asthisjurydid,thatLarch'sdamagesamountedtothediscountedvalueofthebenefitsandcompensationhewouldhavereceivedifhehadworkeduntilage65,lessthediscountedvalueofthepensionpaymentshewouldreceivebecauseofhistermination.[F[[N[ #  7      ׀Thereisnothing"grosslyexcessive"or"shockingto @" theconscience"aboutthiscalculationofLarch'sdamages._Blinzler_,81F.3dat1161. `"&   VII.Attorney'sFees  #@( s ` Wereviewanawardofattorney'sfeesforabuseofdiscretion._Coutin_v.Young&RubicamPuertoRico,Inc.,124F.3d `'", 331,336(1stCir.1997). TheDepartmentarguesthatthedistrict (@$. courterredinawardingLarchattorney'sfeesbecausethecourt,inanorderexplainingitsdecisionnottoawardLarchmultipledamages,observedthat"[_t]his_Ԁcasedidnotinvolveinvidiousdiscrimination,corruption,orselfdealing,butmisguided_cronyism_involvingacommissionerwitha'bigheart.'"TheDepartmentreasonsthatsincethecourtdeclinedtoawardmultipledamagesonthisbasis,itshouldalsohavedeclinedtoawardattorney'sfees. ` TheMassachusetts_Whistleblower_ԀStatuteprovidesthat"[_t]he_Ԁcourtmay...orderpaymentbytheemployerofreasonablecosts,andattorneys'fees."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.149,185(d)(5).Asthestatuteconfersbroadpowertoawardattorney'sfees,withoutsettingforthcriteriafordecidingwhentoawardthem,anditsevidentpurposeistoprotectemployeeswhoarefoundtohavebeensubjecttoretaliationforrefusingtoengageinunlawfulconduct,aswasLarch,wehavenobasisforquestioningthedistrictcourt'sexerciseofitsdiscretiontoawardattorney'sfeesinthiscase.      VIII.PrejudgmentInterest  @"  ` TheDepartmentarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinawardingLarchprejudgmentintereston"theentireamount"ofthedamagesaward.[I[[O[ #  8      ׀TheDepartmenthaswaivedthisargument. @$( Subsequenttothejury'sverdictforLarch,thedistrictcourtissuedanorderstatingthat,"havingreceivednooppositiontothe `'", plaintiff'sletter...whichoutlinestheplaintiff'sunderstandingregardinginterestonthejudgment,"thecourtwasawardingLarchprejudgmentinterestontheentireamountofthejudgmentatarateof12%,fromthedatethecomplaintwasfiled(March9,1998).TheDepartmentthenfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthedistrictcourt'sorder,assertingthatprejudgmentinterestshouldhavebeenawardednotfromthedateofthecomplaint,butfromthedateplaintifffirstsustaineddamages(June30,1998,thefinaldayofhisemploymentattheDepartment).Thedistrictcourtgrantedthismotion,andthepartiesthenstipulatedthatprejudgmentinterestwouldrunfromJune30,1998.[K[[P[ #  9       P  ` TheDepartment'sargumentonappeal,thatthecourterredinawardingprejudgmentinterestontheentireamountofLarch'sdamages,wasneverraisedbelow.InEasternMountainPlatform P Tennis,Inc.v.The_Sherwin_ԄWilliamsCo.,Inc.,40F.3d492(1st  Cir.1994),thedefendantarguedonappealthatprejudgmentinterestshouldnothavebeenawardedonfuturelostprofits.Weheldthatthedefendanthadwaivedtheargumentbecauseithadnotmadetheargumentbeforethetrialcourt.Seeid.at504."The  $ lawinthiscircuitiscrystalline:alitigant'sfailuretoexplicitlyraiseanissuebeforethedistrictcourtforeclosesthat partyfromraisingtheissueforthefirsttimeonappeal."Boston % * BeerCo.Ltd._P'ship_v._Slesar_ԀBros.BrewingCo.,Inc.,9F.3d175,  180(1stCir.1993). 151156 ` 61N.` hp x (#,X` XNAffirmed. 132#XoXX8X]#2343#XoXX8X]#344#XoXX8X\#4