Opinion
No. 11–P–2144.
2013-02-14
Heidi K. ERICKSON, intervener, & another v. CAMBRIDGE HOUSING AUTHORITY.
By the Court (COHEN, GREEN & VUONO, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
We affirm the summary judgment of the Superior Court for substantially the reasons set forth in the memorandum of decision by the motion judge. The claim of discrimination is barred by principles of issue preclusion, in light of the determination, in prior litigation to which the intervener was a party, that the intervener is not disabled.
The issue adjudicated in the prior litigation was identical to the issue raised in the present case, viz., whether Erickson is disabled within the meaning of G.L. c. 151B, § 1(17).
Inasmuch as the Commonwealth is not a participant in this appeal, we need not consider whether the judge correctly determined that it is in privity with Erickson for purposes of defensive use of issue preclusion against it by the defendant Cambridge Housing Authority.
The prior action concluded with final judgment on the merits, and the issue of Erickson's disability was essential to the judgment. See generally Green v. Brookline, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 120, 123 (2001).
There is no claim in the present action or evidence in the summary judgment record suggesting that Erickson developed a new disabling condition following the prior action and before commencement of the present action.
Judgment affirmed.