Posts tagged "Chadwick"

Chadwick v. Duxbury Public Schools, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-158-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   SJC-12054   NANCY CHADWICK  vs.  DUXBURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS & others.[1]       Plymouth.     May 3, 2016. – October 4, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[2]     Privileged Communication.  Evidence, Privileged communication.  Practice, Civil, Discovery.  Public Employment, Collective bargaining.  Labor, Collective bargaining.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 8, 2014.   A motion to compel discovery was heard by Raffi Yessayan, J.   A question of law presented in a petition for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal in the Appeals Court was reported by Andrew R. Grainger, J.  The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Jonathan J. Margolis (Beth R. Myers with him) for the plaintiff. John J. Cloherty, III, for the defendants. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Ava R. Barbour, of Michigan, Matthew D. Jones, Ira C. Fader, James A.W. Shaw, Jasper Groner, Haidee Morris, Matthew E. Dwyer, Eric P. Klein, & Katherine D. Shea for Massachusetts Teachers Association & others. Paul T. Hynes & Michael R. Keefe for Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts. Stephen J. Finnegan & Christopher J. Petrini for Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Inc., & another.     HINES, J.  In this appeal, we consider an issue of first impression:  whether an employer, in defense of a lawsuit alleging discrimination in employment filed by a union member, may demand communications between the union member and her union representatives or between union representatives acting in their official capacity.  The issue arises on interlocutory review of a discovery dispute in a Superior Court action brought by the plaintiff, Nancy Chadwick, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation against the defendants.[3]  The plaintiff objected to certain of the defendants’ discovery requests, asserting a “union member-union” privilege.  A Superior Court judge rejected the plaintiff’s claim and entered an order compelling production of the requested discovery.  The plaintiff filed an application for relief under G. L. c. 231, § 118, and a single justice of the Appeals Court reported the issue to a panel of the Appeals Court.[4]   We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. In her challenge to the defendant’s discovery requests, the plaintiff concedes that a union member-union privilege has never been recognized in Massachusetts.  She argues, however, that G. L. c. 150E, […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 4, 2016 at 8:40 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,