News
The Passing of a Giant of a Lawyer, Michael C. Lehane
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP is deeply saddened to announce that one of the founding partners of the firm, Michael C. Lehane, passed away on January 11, 2021. Mr. Lehane was a giant of a lawyer, an incredible mentor and friend to all who worked with him. He was highly respected by his colleagues, whether it be his fellow partners, judges, clients or friends. Renowned for his quick wit and intelligence, grace under pressure, sense of humor and gentlemanly courtesy, never an ill word was said of him. Mr. Lehane was an instrumental asset in originating and building this firm. While still in law school, he worked as an aide at the Metropolitan State Hospital and proudly said “it was an ideal job, as so many people needed help”. He devoted so much time to helping others in as many ways as he could.
Mr. Lehane spent most of his forty-year legal career in labor and employment law and related litigation, representing private and public entities. Mr. Lehane served as the Town Counsel to a variety of communities throughout the state of Massachusetts. He also served as special counsel to numerous private sector and government entities in litigation and fact-finding areas. Mr. Lehane was an exceptionally capable and versatile trial lawyer and successfully handled a wide variety of matters including commercial litigation, land use and zoning, eminent domain, environmental protection issues, construction contract disputes, housing authority acquisitions and hundreds of employment and labor relations issues. He was admitted to practice before all Massachusetts courts, the Federal District Court of Massachusetts, the United States First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Mr. Lehane graduated from Boston University and the Boston University School of Law and was a recipient of the Cushing Gavin Award.
Mr. Lehane was an integral part of the firm and will be missed dearly by all. “People have said that the bond between friends is beyond the mortal world. Mike, we and so many will miss you, your humor, humbleness intelligence, mentorship and loyalty, we are incredibly grateful for the memories we have of you.” – Arthur Murphy
https://memorials.kuhnfuneralhomes.com/Lehane-Michael/4488775/
United States Supreme Court Opens the Door for Special Education Students’ Right to Bypass Due Process Hearings When Also Suing School District for Money Damages Under ADA: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. ___(2023)
In a unanimous ruling issued on March 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided in favor of a 27-year-old deaf student who sued his Michigan school district, claiming he was denied the services of a qualified interpreter for years, and was misled by teachers and administrators about his progress in school. The student, Miguel Perez, only sought monetary damages. The Court held that he was free to sue the district for money damages due to discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court found that he did not have to “exhaust his administrative remedies,” prior to bringing such an action for damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in a case involving the rights of a disabled student requires a litigant to file and complete a due process hearing before an agency like the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on all claims stemming from a school district's requirement to provide a student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
United States Supreme Court Opens the Door for Special Education Students’ Right to Bypass Due Process Hearings When Also Suing School District for Money Damages Under ADA: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. ___(2023)
In a unanimous ruling issued on March 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided in favor of a 27-year-old deaf student who sued his Michigan school district, claiming he was denied the services of a qualified interpreter for years, and was misled by teachers and administrators about his progress in school. The student, Miguel Perez, only sought monetary damages. The Court held that he was free to sue the district for money damages due to discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court found that he did not have to “exhaust his administrative remedies,” prior to bringing such an action for damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in a case involving the rights of a disabled student requires a litigant to file and complete a due process hearing before an agency like the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on all claims stemming from a school district's requirement to provide a student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Braintree, MA
50 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 410,
Braintree, MA 02184
Boston, MA
75-101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 479-5000
Tel: (888) 841-4850
Fax: (617) 479-6469
Quincy, MA
Crown Colony Plaza
300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410
P.O. Box 9126
Quincy, MA 02169-9126