Byline: Danielle M. Williamson

WORCESTER - The lawyer for former Winchendon Police Chief Robert N. Harrington Jr. said yesterday he will file a motion to get his client's job back after a U.S. District Court jury awarded the ex-chief nearly $770,000 in an employment discrimination suit.

Mr. Harrington, who was terminated as chief in May 2003, alleged in his lawsuit that Winchendon Town Manager James M. Kreidler Jr. and the town discriminated against him because he served in the Army National Guard while he was chief. He also alleged that Mr. Kreidler deprived him of his civil rights by limiting his free speech.

After two days of deliberation on the three counts - two against Mr. Kreidler and one against the town - the jury yesterday ruled in favor of Mr. Harrington, awarding him $340,000 for the military discrimination count.

Mr. Harrington had asked for $170,000, the amount his lawyer said reflects the difference over five years of his pay as soldier and what he would have earned were he still police chief. The jury, however, doubled the amount, finding that the town and Mr. Kreidler "willfully violated" Mr. Harrington's rights.

The jury also awarded Mr. Harrington $69,685 for loss of wages and benefits, and $70,000 in other damages. Finally, they awarded the ex-chief $290,000 in punitive damages, which Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV explained are "to punish a defendant or deter a defendant from such conduct in the future."

After the verdict, Mr. Kreidler walked across the courtroom to where Mr. Harrington was sitting with his family and shook his hand.

Mr. Kreidler and Mr. Harrington referred questions to their respective lawyers.

Lawyer Samuel Perkins, who represented Mr. Kreidler and the town, said he will file motions within the required 10 days to set aside the judgment and reduce the damages. Depending on the outcome of those motions, which are common practice in federal court, he said, he could appeal the decision "down the road."

"The verdict was very surprising," Mr. Perkins said. "There was no requirement to award punitive damages at all. I think that was the most surprising thing we heard today."

The town and Mr. Kreidler are covered by the town's insurance company.

Mr. Harrington, who was appointed chief in December 1999, has been tied up in litigation with the town for five years. Mr. Kreidler, who became town manager in January 2001, fired Mr. Harrington in May 2003 after the chief's three-year contract expired.

The town justified its actions on allegations that the chief lied to a resident about the use of a police cruiser in the Memorial Day parade, reprimanded members of the dispatchers' bargaining unit after the dispatchers voted no confidence in his leadership, and improperly punished a dispatcher by causing his driver's license to be suspended.

The town also alleged Mr. Harrington had anger-management problems, violated the department's rules on dealing with the media, and lied to an investigator employed by the town to look into charges against him.

Mr. Harrington appealed the town's actions, and the Civil Service Commission consolidated three appeals into one case, which was decided in July. The commission found evidence to support the allegations Mr. Harrington had made untruthful statements, lost his temper and violated the department's media relations policy, but cleared him of the other charges that supported his firing.

The commission ruled that Mr. Harrington should be reinstated to the department, but as a patrolman, not as the chief. Both the town and Mr. Harrington have appealed the decision.

The verdict yesterday helps support Mr. Harrington's quest to get his job back, Mr. LeClair said. The trial in U.S. District Court that concluded yesterday is separate from the Civil Service Commission matter, but the two cases basically mirror each other.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Harrington's lawyers outlined what they described as a pattern of discrimination and harassment while Mr. Harrington was chief. The complaint said the town manager "engaged in a pattern of behavior intended to harass, intimidate, embarrass and torment" Mr. Harrington, which included denigrating him in public meetings, making defamatory statements regarding his job performance to selectmen and newspapers, suspending him from work for frivolous reasons, undermining his authority with his staff and disclosing his personnel file to third parties.

Mr. Kreidler first suspended Mr. Harrington in June 2001 for Mr. Harrington's dealings with the news media after a shooting in town. Three months later, Mr. Kreidler gave Mr. Harrington a letter of warning for making a statement at a grievance hearing regarding federal grant requirements, the suit alleged.

Central to the lawsuit were circumstances surrounding Mr. Harrington's announcement in January 2002 that he would be going on active duty with the Army National Guard. The suit alleged Mr. Kreidler questioned the validity of Mr. Harrington's military orders and harassed him for taking time off when he returned from duty in March 2002.

Mr. Harrington filed a complaint in March 2002 with the U.S. Dept. of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service, and days later, was suspended for five days for making the complaint, the suit alleged.

After complaining to the Ethics Commission about Winchendon Selectman Burton E. Gould Jr., who he said told him he'd "better fix parking tickets" when asked, Mr. Harrington was put on leave in July 2002.

He remains employed with the National Guard.

ART: PHOTO

CUTLINE: Former Police Chief Robert Harrington at a hearing in this Jan. 14, 2003, file photo.

PHOTOG: T&G File Photo/RICK CINCLAIR