SJC To Hear Quinn Oral Argument On November 8

We just got word that the Supreme Judicial Court has scheduled oral argument for Adams v. Boston for November 8, 2011 at 9:00a.m. At issue in the case is whether a municipality can cut Quinn Bill payments to officers based on the underfunding of reimbursements by the state. Sandulli Grace Attorney Bryan Decker will be arguing the case for the Boston Officers challenging cuts to their educational benefit.

Suffolk University provides a live videocast of SJC oral arguments at . If you miss the live broadcast, Suffolk will post an archive copy of the video within a few days of the argument. The case number is SJC-10861 if you’d like to watch. While the SJC courtroom is open to the public, there is very little seating available, and we do not encourage folks to attend the oral argument in person.

4 thoughts on “SJC To Hear Quinn Oral Argument On November 8”

  1. Do you happen to know what departments are at risk should Boston prevail in this case – ie those depts. with contracts that do not protect Quinn from this type of attack?
    Also, what would happen to the towns that don’t have clear contract language one way or the other – ie. the briefs seem to make it clear that Cambridge Officers will continue to receive Quinn regardless of reimbursement and regardless of how this case turns out, because their contract specifically provides Quinn without reimbursement, but Boston officers would lose their Quinn if this case doesn’t turn out well- it doesn’t seem to address what would happen in a town where the contract doesn’t specifically provide for Quinn w/out reimbursement (like Cambridge), but also don’t specifically reduce Quinn (like Boston).
    Then, of course, we still have potential legislative action (House Bills 1619, 3553, among others) to worry about, even if this case goes well…

    Thank you for all you do!

  2. We’ll know a lot more tomorrow after the argument.

    I will note that the case only presents the issue of whether the Boston CBA can trump the Quinn. It does not directly address the broader question of whether municipalities can basically ignore the law due to state aid cuts. The MMA does take this position in their Amicus brief, but the Court does not need to decide it to decide the case.

    Back to preparing for the argument!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *