Thursday, 4:30 PM
SJC rules Cambridge courthouse workers complaint can proceed
By Brian MacQuarrie
GLOBE STAFF
In a decision that a lawyer for Cambridge courthouse workers said bolsters their demands for asbestos protection, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Friday that employees can pursue a civil suit to ensure that their health is safeguarded during renovation of the problem-plagued 22-story building.
The ruling dismissed an argument by Chief Justice Robert A. Mulligan, head of the state’s trial courts, that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue him for allegedly breaking a promise to stop asbestos removal until all occupants had been moved from the Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse.
The courthouse employees, Mulligan’s lawyers argued, had failed to show they suffered harm or were endangered ‘‘as a direct result of a breach of duty purportedly owed to them’’ by Mulligan.
However, the high court ruled that while Mulligan is responsible for the maintenance and repair of court facilities, he also ‘‘has a common-law duty of reasonable care’’ to visitors and occupants of the courthouse.
Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley, whose office is in the building, joined the suit after court officials found in April that Mulligan had authorized replacement of elevator cables, which officials said could dislodge asbestos, following a pledge to halt asbestos work until the building’s 800 occupants had been relocated.
On Friday Coakley said she was pleased with the decision, because it is important ‘‘to move forward and get this issue resolved in the best interest of the health and safety of the tenants of 40 Thorndike Street.’’
Ninety thousand pounds of asbestos were used as fireproofing in construction of the building, which opened in 1969 and houses the district attorney’s office, Middlesex Superior Court and District Court, and a county jail.
The case, which seeks to hold Mulligan to a pledge to inform employees about all asbestos-removal efforts, will remain in the high court for further examination.
‘‘This is a really big deal to the people who work in the building,’’ said Chris Milne, lawyer for the plaintiffs. ‘‘The SJC is saying we care about the infantry on the front lines in the courthouse.’’
But Richard M. Zielinski, a lawyer with Goulston & Storrs who represented Mulligan, said the defense prevailed on substantive issues in the case, citing the court’s dismissal of assertions that the courthouse represented a public nuisance, that asbestos exposure had subjected the plaintiffs to assault and battery, and that environmental laws had been violated.
In the public fight over asbestos removal, Zielinski said, what has been overlooked is that ‘‘this whole brouhaha started with an effort by Judge Mulligan ..... to vastly improve the conditions in the building.’’
Employees at the courthouse have complained about unreliable elevators, rainwater leaks, drafts in the winter, and sweltering heat in the summer.
Extensive renovation and asbestos removal are planned for the courthouse. Kevin Flanigan, a deputy director in the state Division of Capital Asset Management, said the building is expected to be vacated by next December. Estimates of the length of the renovation work vary from three years to more than five, and costs are estimated in excess of $130 million.
