To the residents of the Town of Hopkinton,
Recently while driving through your town, I saw a Peter Mimmo for Select Board sign. As a resident and former selectman in Northbridge, former executive director of the Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce and small business owner, I believe I understand the responsibility of being a community leader.
I know firsthand how Mr. Mimmo makes decisions in his capacity as a litigator for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD). Since 2017, I have been disputing a discrimination complaint against me by a tenant and her boyfriend in my capacity as the property manager. Mr. Mimmo is the lead attorney for MCAD.
MCAD is alleging that I discriminated against a tenant and her boyfriend for the following: I tried to evict the tenant and boyfriend for having a pit bull on the property when there was a no pet policy, and I retaliated against them by attempting to evict them for non-payment of rent after they filed a MCAD complaint against me.
I have written numerous letters to Gov. Healy requesting a formal investigation of the institutional bias, incompetent investigation and MCAD attorneys’ — including Mr. Mimmo’s — failure to report rental assistance fraud by the tenant.
Mr. Mimmo failed to consult with a diabetic dog training professional to determine if the tenant’s boyfriend was truthful in stating his dog was “self-trained.” I sought to have a professional diabetic dog trainer testify at the public hearing, Mr. Mimmo opposed my request to have a professional testify. When I asked Mr. Mimmo in a pre-hearing meeting why he was opposing my attorney’s motion to have the professional testify, he stated, “Because if he said it, it was true” — referring to statements made under oath that the boyfriend had “self-trained” his dog.
After testimony, the hearing officer stated in his decision that the testimony of the tenant’s boyfriend was “not credible” that he had “self- trained” his pit bull.
Mr. Mimmo failed to report rental assistance fraud by the tenant, the tenant applied for and received $2,200, and in return I signed a new lease. The tenant failed to list the boyfriend on the housing assistance application as a resident. To “bolster” its discrimination complaints against me, MCAD alleges my actions to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent was retaliatory — while never reporting the fraud by the tenant.
— Marty Green, Northbridge
Editor’s note: The opinions and comments expressed in letters to the editor are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the Independent. Submissions should be no more than 400 words and must include the writer’s name and contact information for verification. Letters should be relevant and not primarily for the purpose of promoting an organization or event or thanking sponsors or volunteers. Letters may be edited by the Independent staff for space, errors or clarification, and the Independent offers no guarantee that every letter will be published. For a schedule of deadlines for letters and other submissions for the print edition, click here.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t know exactly what an attorney representing MCAD is free to say here. (I reached out to Peter Mimmo but don’t have an answer to that question yet.) Nevertheless, I looked up this case myself and found that the hearing officer found in favor of the two plaintiffs (a tenant and her boyfriend, an insulin-dependent diabetic) and against Mr. Green, the landlord. The hearing examiner, citing prior case law, found that Mr. Green had failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required by the law. Accordingly, Mr. Green was ordered to pay emotional damages and a civil penalty, and attend training on disability law.
So Peter Mimmo and his colleague, as MCAD attorneys, won their case. I don’t see the problem here. This just looks like a fellow who is seeking to retaliate.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/fortin-et-al-v-green-et-al/download
Just did a quick Google search here just to see if Mimmo was a lawyer representing the Tenant like a lawyer does for a lawsuit or was a lawyer in another sense. The online guide to the MCAD says: “When the Complainant (here, the tenant) does not have an attorney, an MCAD lawyer (called “Commission Counsel”) will prosecute the case on behalf of the Commission. However, MCAD Commission Counsel does not represent the Complainant in the case.” So….*if* Mimmo was not a “hired gun” representing the Complainant in the traditional sense of a “lawsuit” (as most of us think of “lawsuits”) and instead was supposed to seek the truth on behalf of the Commonwealth, how is it that Mimmo could rely on hearsay to make his case? According to Marty, it appears that Mimmo just ignored the facts and any legitimate testimony, and instead fell back on the old “because I said so!!” rationale to make his case. If true, then Mimmo certainly would fit right in with the current Select Board!
Curious Cat should read the case.
Mr. Green you were found quite guilty with hefty fines to pay for discrimination. This appears as sour grapes and nothing else.
Thank you for sharing. It prompted me to research the findings of fact of the case, as opposed disgruntled comments. This illustrates why I am proud to support Peter Mimmo. Someone dedicated to giving the disadvantaged a voice, against those in a position to take advantage.