WESTFIELD — On May 7, the City Council approved an appropriation of $112,500 to settle a lawsuit brought by 17 Westfield Police Department officers against the city.
The officers’ lawsuit alleged that they should have been paid “regular wages” when attending the police academy.
The council entered into executive session to discuss a request by Mayor Michael McCabe for immediate consideration of an appropriation of $112,500 from free cash to the Law Department’s Judgment Account for litigation related to Police Officer Joseph Clark and others versus the city of Westfield.
McCabe declined to comment on the settlement.
The council spent less than 25 minutes in executive session before returning to reconvene.
After McCabe presented the city’s fiscal year 2027 budget, the council took up his request for the settlement.
Without discussion, the council approved the amount with Councilors Bridget Matthews-Kane, Kristen Mello, Nicholas Morganelli, Bill Onyski, John Beltrandi, Karen Fanion, Ralph Figy, Dan Allie and Cindy Harris voting yes.
City Councilors Daniel Knapik, James Adams, Brent Bean II and Michael Burns voted against the appropriation.
In September 2024, Clark, with 16 other officers, filed in Hampden Superior Court a lawsuit that alleged the city failed to pay them regular wages while training at the state’s police academy before they began their careers as certified law enforcement officers.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed by Springfield attorney Jeffrey Morneau, state law requires that “any individual appointed to the position of police officer in any city or town of the commonwealth satisfactorily complete a prescribed course of study approved by the municipal police training committee.”
Messages sent to Morneau asking for comment were unreturned.
The lawsuit is based largely on a state Appellate Court decision in January 2023 — known as the Brewster decision — that found the town of Brewster had violated state law when it paid officers who were attending the academy less than the regular wages paid to the regular patrol officers, the position to which they were appointed.
Referring to that same law, Morneau wrote that any person attending the police academy is defined as a student officer, and that person “shall be paid the regular wages provided for the position to which [they were] appointed.”
Clark, the original complainant in the lawsuit, said he was appointed as a full-time officer in December 2022 and started work four months later in April 2023, according to the lawsuit.
In April 2023, Clark was sent to the police academy and graduated in September 2023, according to the lawsuit. Between April and September, Clark was paid $19 per hour, “a rate less than the lowest wage rate set forth in the collective bargaining agreement.”
During that period, the lowest wage rate for an entry-level officer was $28.49 per hour until June 30, when it increased to $29.06 per hour, under the collective bargaining agreement the city signed with the Westfield Police Officers Coalition.
In addition, according to the lawsuit, Clark was entitled to education incentive pay, which was not paid while he attended the academy.
The officers in the complaint asked for a decision or jury trial on three counts: Count I, Violation of Declaratory Judgment Act; Count II, Violation of Mass. General Law c.149. 148, which requires employers pay employees the full amount of owed wages; and Count III, Quantum Meruit, which is defined as the actual value of services rendered.
The city, represented by the national law firm Seyferth & Shaw LLC, responded to the complaint by requesting the court dismiss the Quantum Meruit Count III and Count II.
The city’s attorneys countered the Count II claim that the wages paid the officers during their training at the academy were dictated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Westfield Patrol Officers Coalition and the city.
The officers’ own allegations establish they were paid the precise rates that the applicable CBA set for them during the probationary period, and there is no statutory provision that impacts the rates for officers during their probationary period, according to the city’s attorneys.
“As such, there is no plausible Wage Act claim for officers during their probational period, as they were paid exactly the amount prescribed … and Count II thus fails as a matter of law,” the attorneys wrote.
As to Count III of Quantum Meruit, the city alleged there can be no claim of services rendered when the conditions are set by the CBA between the Police Union and the city, and that it fails as a matter of law.
The officers’ response to the Quantum Meruit claim for dismissal was that the academy students were not considered full-time officers as defined by the CBA and therefore not covered by its provisions.
For those reasons, the officers requested that the court deny the motions to dismiss, which it did in May 2025.
While the case continued in Superior Court, the Westfield City Council approved a request by McCabe for $250,000 in February 2025 to pay for outside counsel.
In November 2025, both sides sought a settlement. However, in February, both sides notified the court they were unable to reach a settlement because they had different interpretations and applications of certain key legal concepts, according to the motion.
There was a pretrial conference scheduled for Thursday, May 7, but there is no indication in the court docket that the meeting was held.
