A Bristol County Superior Court judge has recently nullified a jury’s verdict that required New Bedford to pay $127,000 to former police officer Macaila Saunders, who claimed she faced retaliation after reporting allegations of gender discrimination. The city challenged the jury’s decision, citing issues with procedure and insufficient evidence.
Saunders, a former homicide detective in New Bedford who now serves as a school resource officer in Swansea, filed her lawsuit in 2021. Initially, she accused the city of both gender discrimination and retaliation. However, the gender discrimination charge was later dropped, leaving only the retaliation aspect for the jury to consider.
Central to the case were allegations against Scott Carola, now an assistant deputy chief, who was accused of fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against Saunders after she raised concerns about unequal treatment based on gender. In March 2025, the jury found both the city and Carola liable, awarding Saunders $50,000 for emotional distress and $77,000 for lost wages she would have earned if she had remained in her position.
In April, the city sought to dismiss the award or have the case retried. Judge William White Jr. ruled in favor of the defense in a 17-page order, noting that improper jury instructions regarding the statute of limitations allowed consideration of conduct that occurred too far in the past, which he identified as prejudicial in light of the weak evidence presented.
The judge characterized the $50,000 award for emotional distress as excessive and inconsistent with the facts of the case, stating it represented a miscarriage of justice. He suggested that, even if an error was made regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the defense had the right to a retrial concerning the damages.
Saunders’ attorney, Christopher Trundy, expressed disappointment over the ruling and argued that the judge’s findings did not align with the testimony provided in court, believing the jury’s verdict deserved to be upheld. Trundy confirmed his intent to appeal the decision, which could prolong the litigation by several months.
This case highlights ongoing challenges within law enforcement regarding retaliation and discrimination claims, resonating with recent lawsuits faced by the department.
The article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.