Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Attorneys Present at the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s 41st Annual Meeting and Trade Show
Katherine Hesse, partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, presented during the Labor Law Update: New Laws, Recent Cases and Agency Decisions at the Massachusetts Municipal Association’s (MMA) 41st Annual Meeting and Trade Show in Boston. Attorney Hesse’s presentation focused on new and important decisions arising from the Joint Labor-Management Committee, Department of Labor Relations, Civil Service Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and Contributory Retirement Appeal Board in 2019. Some of the most significant decisions which Attorney Hesse discussed involved the teachers’ strike in Dedham and the presence of observers in collective bargaining negotiations. Peter Mello, attorney at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane and President of the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyer’s Association, moderated the MMA’s Municipal Law Update presentation which covered a broad range of important recent developments in municipal law.
The MMA Annual Meeting & Trade Show is the largest regular gathering of Massachusetts local government officials. The two-day event features educational workshops, nationally recognized speakers, awards programs, a large trade show, and an opportunity to network with municipal officials from across the state.
Tom Jorling, is an attorney, advisor to MHTL, former co-drafter of the Clean Air and Water Act and former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation under Governor Mario Cuomo. Tom Jorling served under 4 presidents, including Deputy Director of the Environmental Agency. Mr. Jorling was the recipient of the inaugural Boston College Law School Public Interest Law Foundation Distinction in Public Service Award in April 2019. Thomas Jorling pens the article below on the attack Read More
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a historic 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, in which the Court held that employers cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This case, Bostock v. Clayton County, was a consolidation of three cases, involving two gay men, who were terminated based on their sexual orientation, and one transgender woman, who was terminated based on her gender identity.