Sunday, July 03, 2011

Monteiro: Papers explained by knowledgeable lawyer

On June 29, 2011, I reported on papers (29, 30 and 31) filed in the Appeals Court in the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The posting may be read at:

This is the case in which judge and jury have found the Cambridge City Manager “reprehensible” (judge’s word, jury’s money) for destroying the life of Malvina Monteiro in retaliation for this black female department head filing a civil rights complaint.

My report indicated that I saw the papers, that I did not know what was in them, and that it looked to me like the Appeals Court panel was chastising both sides.

An attorney who has been familiar with the Monteiro case provides the following analysis. Lukey is the attorney for Cambridge. Zucker is Monteiro’s attorney.

I know no more than the below, but I certainly intend to research the case he has cited.


No 29 is Lukey's letter calling the Court's attention to the SJC case of Psy Ed Corp v Klein, decided one week after the oral argument.

No 30 is Zucker's response, demolishing Lukey, pointing out how the Psy Ed case supports Monteiro on all the points of the Appeal, including the Judge's instructions and the propriety of the handling of the retaliation claim.

No 31 tells me the Court has its mind made up.