Judge Appears Reluctant To Intervene In Embattled Boston Police Commissioner White's Firing

Boston Police Commissioner Dennis White should have an opportunity to clear his name and have the cause for his termination evaluated in a judicial hearing, White’s attorney argued Thursday during a virtual Suffolk Superior Court hearing.

That declaration was part of a multi-pronged argument brought to block acting Mayor Kim Janey from firing White after an independent investigator’s report found that multiple unnamed witnesses accused him of committing acts of domestic violence against his ex-wife 22 years ago.

The report did not show evidence of White being charged with any crimes, though it did point to questionable police procedures in the internal handling of domestic violence allegations.

White and his older daughter both maintain that the abuse allegations are false.

At the hearing on Thursday before Associate Justice Heidi Brieger, White's attorney Nicholas B. Carter argued the city’s release of the independent investigator’s “highly defamatory” report, and Janey’s announcement of her intention to terminate White, together with the brief notice he received regarding that intention, constituted an unfair “rush to judgement.” It also, Carter said, violated the 1962 law that outlines procedures for Boston’s mayor to appoint and remove a police commissioner.

Carter requested an evidentiary hearing in two weeks.

The city’s outside attorney, Kay Hodge, rebutted that Janey was within her rights and that no such judicial hearing was required.

Brieger recessed the court, vowing to give a quick response after reading the cases each side cited.

The 1962 law says that commissioners may, “after notice and hearing,” be removed by the mayor “for cause.” Carter argued that if forced to show such cause in court, rather than in the media and a hearing where the mayor presides, the city and Janey would fail.

Most employers “are very careful” about disclosing details of an employee’s termination, Carter said, when Brieger asked if the mayor’s cause should be secret.

Carter acknowledged the cause of removing a public official would not remain secret, but argued “there would be far less disclosure” than was made in White’s case.

Meanwhile, Hodge argued that if a worker has notice and “an opportunity to be heard,” as White did, then the legal standard is met and any challenges to removal can be pursued after termination.

“This would make your life incredibly miserable,” Hodge said to Brieger, arguing that there would be an inevitable flood of cases before the court system if it oversaw the firing of all highly public employees.

Brieger seemed to agree with Hodge’s presentation during the Thursday hearing — the judge interrupted the city's case less often than she interrupted White's lawyer.

“I’m not sure you’ve convinced me,” Brieger said to Carter regarding his request for a hearing after both sides presented.

Brieger also asked both sides about the relevance of former Mayor Marty Walsh’s alleged prior knowledge of White’s internal affairs records.

White's lawyer argued that, because of the former mayor’s alleged prior knowledge, the city can’t fire White for things the city already knew. His legal team said it plans to amend the suit “to add a civil rights claim,” if allowed.

Walsh insists that he had no prior knowledge of the abuse allegations against White.