UPDATED 12/30/25 11:41PM: The city filed a notice of appeal on December 23.  

Moss’s case seems to have completed its turn in Superior Court–for now. (via Springfield City Hall)

As of December 19, the lawsuit Darryl Moss, a former aide to Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno, filed against his ex-boss appeared to be entering its final phase—at least in Superior Court. Judge Jeremy Bucci took a Solomonic route through each side’s post-judgment motions that followed the November 7 verdict finding Sarno had illegally retaliated against Moss by firing him in 2020.

Bucci rejected the city and Sarno’s motions to overturn the jury’s decision. The judge also would not grant a request for a new trial. He did agree to correct the judgment, which seemingly shrunk Moss’s recovery by about $400,000. Bucci granted most of Moss’s full attorney’s fees request. Yet, the total amount could still put the city on the hook for about $800,000.

In rejecting the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Bucci said that Moss had established his complaints regarding unequal treatment at the police department. Consequently, his advocacy on that issue could be grounds upon which his retaliation claim could rest.

“There was ample evidence that the plaintiff’s complaints and the issue of non-punishment/insufficiency of punishment of the officers went on for years and had indeed not resolved when the plaintiff was terminated,” the judge wrote.

After a weeklong trial this fall, jurors only found that Sarno retaliated against Moss, who is Black, for protected activity, specifically opposing discriminatory conduct. However, the jury turned away Moss’s claims his termination was itself a discriminatory act based on race.

Most of the motions before Judge Bucci amounted to either reversing the verdict or softening the blow. The city succeeded on the latter to a point, thanks to a technicality. Moss’s attorneys opposed these motions and filed their own motion for $489,741 in attorney’s fees. It is common for defendants that lose to pay a plaintiff’s legal costs. Massachusetts’s anti-discrimination law explicitly allows this.

Moss’s lead attorney, Robert Johnson, declined to comment on Bucci’s rulings. Lawyers for Sarno and the city did not respond to comment.

Judge Bucci, pictured at his 2022 confirmation hearing, didn’t quite split the post-judgment baby, but still yeah, kinda. (via YouTube/Governor’s Council)

Among his decisions, Bucci wrote the most about the request for attorney’s fees. He essentially rejected the defense’s contention that Johnson, Moss’s lead attorney, violated court rules and performed poorly. The judge reasoned that to the extent these things occurred, they pertained to counts Sarno and the city won.

Still, the failure of some of the claims played into the judge’s decision to award Moss less than he requested for attorney’s fees. Bucci found many of the hours spent on unsuccessful claims were ineligible as were a few other tasks. This resulted in the compensable hours Johnson performed falling from 591 hours to 457 hours, plus another eight and a half hours for non-legal work. Bucci did not reduce the hours Moss’s other attorney, Eddie Jenkins, provided.

However, the real drag on attorney’s fees likely came from Bucci’s decision to lower the rate for Johnson from $795 to $600. The hourly rate for Jenkins also fell $20 to $575. The city had argued Moss was seeking Boston-area rates—both of his attorneys are based there—for a case that proceeded in Springfield. Bucci did not disturb the hours Jenkins claimed to have worked on behalf of Moss. The bottom-line fee award Bucci authorized was $300,711.

This was not the only modification Bucci made. He also granted the defendants’ motion to amend the judgment. In short, the city and Sarno argued the judgment did not reflect how the jury filled out the verdict slip. The parties agreed to the questions on the slip and, in the defendants’ reading, the jury did not intend to grant Moss back wages. This was ostensibly because there was not enough evidence that he sought to mitigate the loss of income he sustained when Sarno canned him.

As a result, Moss will only receive $125,000 in damages plus nearly $50,000 in interest. He will retain his $310,000 judgment for punitive damages.

The city was not successful in getting a new trial or overturning the verdict. To overturn the jury, Bucci would need to find that a jury could not reasonably return a verdict for Moss. The judge cast aside the claim that there was no causal relationship between Moss’s actions and his termination. Bucci also rejected the defendants’ claim Moss’s attorney improperly invoked the First Amendment.

Most significantly, Bucci found that Moss had supplied sufficient evidence for the jury to find he had undertaken protected activity. Moss’s termination was the retaliation to it.

Bucci did not buy the city and Sarno’s claim that Moss’s complaints about uneven police accountability was not protected by state civil rights law. (WMP&I)

“The plaintiff convinced the jury that the defendants’ failure to take adverse action against the officers constituted (or that the plaintiff reasonably believed that it constituted) employment discrimination and was therefore a protected activity,” the judge wrote.

Bucci’s decision denying the new trial implies that the defendants rehashed many of the same arguments from the notwithstanding motion.

“[T]he defendants continue to argue that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity when he spoke out about the inadequacy of punishment of police officers connected to the so-called Nathan Bills fight,” Bucci wrote. “The court continues to find those arguments unpersuasive.”

Whatever improper statements Moss’s attorney made, the judge continued, they were only relevant to the claims Moss lost.

Before the post-judgment motions, the city had indicated it would appeal the outcome. Indeed, the city filed its notice of appeal in superior court last Tuesday. The reduction in Moss’s judgment probably will not change that calculus. The city still faces a near-million dollar hit for Sarno’s actions. Negotiating verdicts down is not uncommon, but that may not be plausible here.

It seems likely the mayor would want to try to wash off the stain of a finding that he broke civil rights law. A successful appeal may wipe away the legal implications. Whether that could cure the political impact of the verdict remains to be seen.