Archives

In July 2014, David Duncan and Norman Zalkind settled a personal injury case for $850,000.00. The client suffered three broken leg bones and a concussion in 2009 and was left with permanent scarring as a result of being hit by a hit-and-run driver while in a crosswalk. The client was able to save a friend from injury by pushing her out of harm’s way. ZDB filed suit in the Suffolk Superior Court against the driver responsible for these injuries and against the owner of the vehicle involved. The case settled during mediation.

On July 1, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for further appellate review from the decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Commonwealth v. Wallace, which upheld the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him on speedy trial grounds. Norman Zalkind and Ruth O’Meara-Costello represent the defendant, who is charged with first-degree murder, and argue on appeal that his rights were violated when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts waited more than five years to return him to Massachusetts for trial following his arrest.

On June 26, 2014, Inga Bernstein and Emma Quinn-Judge filed an application for leave to obtain further appellate review with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) from the decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Kiely v. Teradyne. The cases raises two important questions concerning the application of the state antidiscrimination statute, G.L. c. 151B, and has significant implications for workers who seek to vindicate their rights to workplaces free of discrimination and retaliation.

First, is a plaintiff entitled to attorney’s fees under G.L. c. 151B, § 9, where a jury finds liability for discrimination or retaliation? The Appeals Court concluded that the statute requires a showing of “harm” or “actual damage or loss” before a plaintiff may recover fees and that a jury finding of discrimination or retaliation was not sufficient to show such harm. In her application for further appellate review, Kiely argues that the Appeals Court decision misreads the language of c. 151B and fundamentally undercuts the statute, by failing to recognize that discrimination and retaliation are inherently harmful, both to the individual and to the public at large.

Second, when is a plaintiff in a retaliation case entitled to punitive damages? The SJC articulated a new standard for punitive damages in discrimination cases in Haddad v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 455 Mass. 91, 110 (2009), but no published decision has yet applied that standard to a retaliation case, and Kiely argues that the SJC should grant further appellate review to clarify how the Haddad standard should be modified when applied to a retaliation claim.

On June 13, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision in Commonwealth v. Steven J. Morse reversing the defendant’s conviction for misleading a police officer under Massachusetts’ witness intimidation statute, G.L. c. 268 s. 13B. As a result of the reversal, the defendant’s sentence will be reduced significantly. Monica Shah submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the defendant on this issue. The amicus brief and SJC’s decision can be found by clicking on the respective links.

On June 4, 2014, Monica Shah argued before the Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit to prevent the extradition of a client, who suffers from serious mental illness and is highly suicidal, to the United Kingdom. In light of the gravity of the issues presented, the lower court had stayed the extradition order and granted the client bail pending appeal. The Court of Appeals has taken the appeal under advisement. The Boston Globe article on the case can be accessed here.

In May 2014, the firm obtained a very favorable settlement for a Department of Correction employee who alleged that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Governor’s Office, the Executive Office for Public Safety and Security, and the Department of Correction discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of her political beliefs, her request for protected medical leave, and her complaints that the Commonwealth failed to pay her promised pay raise when she was promoted to a higher position and paid her substantially less than her male counterparts for equal work.

In May 2014, David Duncan and Naomi Shatz won an appeal with a student originally disciplined by her graduate program for plagiarism. On appeal the school agreed with the student that she was improperly given a failing grade for a clinical internship based on the allegation of plagiarism, and reversed the imposition of the grade.

In April 2014 Naomi Shatz and Norman Zalkind favorably settled a claim on behalf of their client, a young woman who was viciously attacked by a dog as she walked by him on the street.

The Hanging Judge is the first novel by Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Emma Quinn-Judge reviewed the book in the March 2014 edition of The Champion, the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Her review can be read here.

On March 7, 2014, Emma Quinn-Judge argued to the Massachusetts Appeals Court that the 2011 jury verdict awarding our client $1.1 million in punitive damages, which had been vacated by the trial judge, should be reinstated. She also argued a related appeal regarding the scope of the attorney’s fees provision in chapter 151B, the Massachusetts antidiscrimination law. A decision is not anticipated for several months.