Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Partner Presents the Legal and Fiduciary Update at the 38th Annual ISCEBS Symposium in New Orleans
The ISCEBS held its 38th annual Symposium featuring two and a half days of keynote speakers, breakout and discussion sessions covering a variety of employee benefits topics presented by industry experts. The purpose of this Symposium is to provide actionable strategies and takeaways on the benefits issues and trends affecting plan participants. Attendees also have the opportunity to connect with hundreds of benefits professionals across the U.S. and Canada who are tackling the same benefits issues and to gain educational credits that will aid them in their future career endeavors. It’s where employee benefits professionals gain the insight they need to curate the benefits that keep their employees engaged and their plans compliant. Attendees have the opportunity to discover leading-edge strategies from benefits professionals who share their experience along with best practices, tips and trends.
Katherine A. Hesse, a partner with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP recently presented the U.S. legal update with a three pronged approach to aid employee benefits experts in navigating the legal decisions most pertinent to their field. Part one focused on three important and interesting developments which included deference to agency decisions, ACA challenges, and corporate governance. Part two emphasized guiding principles and cases which illustrated the necessity of said principles. Part three spotlighted recent Supreme Court case decisions that most impacted the employee benefits field.
The International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing solution-oriented education, research and information about employee benefits to single, multi-employer and public employee benefit plans across the United States and Canada.
Attorney Felicia Vasudevan, a partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, received a favorable decision on behalf of her client, Marshfield Public Schools. The Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgement that upheld a decision of the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”). However, as the notice was filed more than 30 days after entry, the First Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff also appealed the district court’s order, denying her motion to vacate. Read More
Following our Alert from March 16, 2023, Civility is Dead – The Supreme Court Rules Municipal Control of Public Speak Limited to Reasonable Time/Place/Manner Restrictions, which discussed the holding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Barron v. Kolenda and the Town of Southborough (SJC-13284), we promised to bring you more detailed guidance on developing a Public Speak policy for your public body or municipality. The Barron case involved a constitutional challenge to the Town of Southborough’s public comment policy, which attempted to impose a code of civility on members of the public who participated in public comment before public bodies. In Barron, the court interpreted the state constitution to mean that public bodies may request, but not require, that public commentators be respectful and courteous. Instead, a public body may set restrictions on reasonable time, place, and manner comments to ensure that the meeting retains an orderly and peaceable manner.