Legal Experience And Jurisprudence
Although a sole practitioner, Attorney Paul L. Nevins of Boston has been involved in extensive, complex civil cases during his legal career. In most cases, he has prosecuted as a plaintiff's attorney on behalf of employees who have been victims of age, sex, race, or disability cases. Early in his career, he represented the prevailing plaintiff in Denton v. Boilermakers Union, Local 29, 650 F. Supp. 1151 (D. Mass., 1986), a race discrimination case in which Judge Wolf found a continuing civil rights violation that permitted the plaintiff to roll back his statute of limitations with respect to damages.
Mr. Nevins was the lead attorney for the plaintiff in the seminal case of Iwata v. Intel Corp, 349 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass., 2004) (Young, J.). In that case, attorney Nevins was also able to persuade the federal court that the refusal of an insurance company to honor the terms of a long-term disability policy violated the cognate provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101- et seq.; that its provisions were more expansive and trumped any contrary provisions of the Employee Retirement. Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC § 1001; and, for that reason, the kind of policy in question violated Ms. Iwata's rights and potentially could discriminate against millions of Americans who became disabled because of emotional traumas or illnesses.
Over the years, Nevins has successfully represented countless employees who have been fired from their jobs for discriminatory reasons. See, for example, Allenson v. Norton Public Schools, et al., C.A. 00-1059 ( Bristol, 2003 ); Jerauld v. Waltham Housing Authority, et al, C.A. 04-807 (Middlesex, 2007); City of Boston School Committee v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Edward Burley, C. A. No. 07-1333 (Suffolk, 2008). Attorney Nevins has also negotiated long-term contracts for employees who have negotiating leverage, and he has successfully opposed the efforts of former employers to enforce the terms of non-competition agreements against critical executives and other highly-compensated employees in scores of cases.
Attorney Nevins also won important appeals - Johnson v. Town of Sandwich School Committee, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (2012) and Younker v. Mass. Department of Transitional Assistance, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (2012). In those two cases, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed decisions by the Superior Court judges below who had entered judgments in favor of a municipality and a state agency against a school superintendent and an agency director.
More recently, Attorney Nevins and Attorney llir Kavaja prevailed in a nationality discrimination and retaliation case before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. In Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Oana Babu v. Aspen Dental Management, Docket Nos. 10 WEM 0091411and WEM 01886 [Affirmed by the Full Commission in 2020], Ms. Babu was awarded damages for lost pay back pay and emotional distress. Coupled with an award of continuing interest and attorneys' fees, Ms. Babu obtained an attachment in Suffolk Superior Court in November 2020 to secure a prospective judgment in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
Paul Nevins is persuaded that sex, race, age, and disability discrimination remain pervasive problems in the workplace. As an employment attorney, Paul Nevins is also convinced that the concept of "at-will employment" and the enforcement of non-competition agreements and non-solicitation agreements against former employees and without compensation are evidence that the legal system remains heavily weighted against the rights of employees. Based upon his many years of experience, he has found that, because of lax enforcement at the federal and state levels, large numbers of employees are improperly classified as salaried or exempt employees when, in fact, the work they do requires that they be paid hourly wages, including time and a half for work weeks in excess of forty hours.
As a former public school teacher and member of the Executive Board of the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, AFT/AFL-CIO, and as one who hails from a long family tradition of union organizers, elected representatives, and union advocates, Paul Nevins also believes that the National Labor Relations Act needs to be reformed to eliminate right-to-work laws, to expand the number of persons who should be classified as employees, and to make it vastly easier for workers to unionize.
Paul Nevins was named by Thomson Reuters in 2020 as a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in employment litigation.
Although a sole practitioner, Attorney Paul L. Nevins of Boston has been involved in extensive, complex civil cases during his legal career. In most cases, he has prosecuted as a plaintiff's attorney on behalf of employees who have been victims of age, sex, race, or disability cases. Early in his career, he represented the prevailing plaintiff in Denton v. Boilermakers Union, Local 29, 650 F. Supp. 1151 (D. Mass., 1986), a race discrimination case in which Judge Wolf found a continuing civil rights violation that permitted the plaintiff to roll back his statute of limitations with respect to damages.
Mr. Nevins was the lead attorney for the plaintiff in the seminal case of Iwata v. Intel Corp, 349 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass., 2004) (Young, J.). In that case, attorney Nevins was also able to persuade the federal court that the refusal of an insurance company to honor the terms of a long-term disability policy violated the cognate provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101- et seq.; that its provisions were more expansive and trumped any contrary provisions of the Employee Retirement. Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC § 1001; and, for that reason, the kind of policy in question violated Ms. Iwata's rights and potentially could discriminate against millions of Americans who became disabled because of emotional traumas or illnesses.
Over the years, Nevins has successfully represented countless employees who have been fired from their jobs for discriminatory reasons. See, for example, Allenson v. Norton Public Schools, et al., C.A. 00-1059 ( Bristol, 2003 ); Jerauld v. Waltham Housing Authority, et al, C.A. 04-807 (Middlesex, 2007); City of Boston School Committee v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Edward Burley, C. A. No. 07-1333 (Suffolk, 2008). Attorney Nevins has also negotiated long-term contracts for employees who have negotiating leverage, and he has successfully opposed the efforts of former employers to enforce the terms of non-competition agreements against critical executives and other highly-compensated employees in scores of cases.
Attorney Nevins also won important appeals - Johnson v. Town of Sandwich School Committee, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 812 (2012) and Younker v. Mass. Department of Transitional Assistance, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (2012). In those two cases, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed decisions by the Superior Court judges below who had entered judgments in favor of a municipality and a state agency against a school superintendent and an agency director.
More recently, Attorney Nevins and Attorney llir Kavaja prevailed in a nationality discrimination and retaliation case before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. In Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and Oana Babu v. Aspen Dental Management, Docket Nos. 10 WEM 0091411and WEM 01886 [Affirmed by the Full Commission in 2020], Ms. Babu was awarded damages for lost pay back pay and emotional distress. Coupled with an award of continuing interest and attorneys' fees, Ms. Babu obtained an attachment in Suffolk Superior Court in November 2020 to secure a prospective judgment in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
Paul Nevins is persuaded that sex, race, age, and disability discrimination remain pervasive problems in the workplace. As an employment attorney, Paul Nevins is also convinced that the concept of "at-will employment" and the enforcement of non-competition agreements and non-solicitation agreements against former employees and without compensation are evidence that the legal system remains heavily weighted against the rights of employees. Based upon his many years of experience, he has found that, because of lax enforcement at the federal and state levels, large numbers of employees are improperly classified as salaried or exempt employees when, in fact, the work they do requires that they be paid hourly wages, including time and a half for work weeks in excess of forty hours.
As a former public school teacher and member of the Executive Board of the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, AFT/AFL-CIO, and as one who hails from a long family tradition of union organizers, elected representatives, and union advocates, Paul Nevins also believes that the National Labor Relations Act needs to be reformed to eliminate right-to-work laws, to expand the number of persons who should be classified as employees, and to make it vastly easier for workers to unionize.
Paul Nevins was named by Thomson Reuters in 2020 as a Massachusetts Super Lawyer in employment litigation.