Nathanson v. Mca

2003 WL 22480688 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Stropnicky filed a complaint with P against D for gender discrimination in a place of public accommodation in violation of G.L.c. 272, § 98. Stropnicky alleged that D excluded him from her legal practice and declined to represent him in his divorce proceedings because P only represents women in her divorce practice. D advertises to the general public via the white and yellow pages and local newspapers. D admits that her reason for refusing to represent Stropnicky is because his gender interferes with or precludes her ability to provide him zealous legal representation. A hearing was held at P. The Commissioner issued his decision that P had engaged in gender discrimination in violation of G.L.c. 272, § 98. The Full Commission affirmed the decision on July 26, 1999. As per her right, P filed this action to appeal D’s decision. D claims that issues pertaining to her behavior as an attorney are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Bar Overseers.