Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Presents in Collaboration with Cape Cod Human Resources Association
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Partners presented their Labor & Employment Law Update in collaboration with the Cape Cod Human Resources Association. Attorney Nan ONeill presented the first segment titled “Creating Your Tool Kit for Meeting Reasonable Accommodation Obligations”, where she examined reasonable accommodation obligations applicable in the current health crises, including the global pandemic and opioid misuse, and outlined steps to create your own toolkit. Attorney Kier Wachterhauser presented a 2020-2021 Case Law Update, followed by Attorney Sarah Spatafore’s Statutory and Regulatory Update. The final segment was presented by Mr. Wachterhauser and Ms. Spatafore, titled “COVID-19 Now and Later – Navigating the COVID-Related Issues of Today and Preparing for the changed Workplace of Tomorrow”. During this time, they discussed likely wage and hour issues arising out of work-from-home and hybrid environments, new COBRA subsidy under ARPA, ongoing vaccine and ADA accommodation issues, and how to handle resistance to COVID or other health-related safety policies.
Ms. ONeill has 30 years of experience counseling and representing employers in all aspects of traditional labor law and employment, and has extensive experience in labor arbitration and litigation of employment-related disputes. She is a graduate of Boston College and the Georgetown University Law Center. Ms. Spatafore practices primarily in the labor and employment area and has represented clients before a number of courts and administrative tribunals at both the state and federal level. In addition, she often assists in education issues. She graduated from Bates College and received her Juris Doctor, with Honors, from Boston College Law School. Kier Wachterhauser represents private and public sector clients in all areas of labor and employment law and maintains a general litigation practice. He received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law, received a Master of Arts degree from Northwestern University and graduated from Swarthmore College with honors.
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP is one of the 50 largest firms in Massachusetts, their years of experience and resources offer clients throughout New England and nationally a wide range of legal services while maintaining a “hands-on touch” that is important in Client-Attorney relationships. Their broad resources and technology enable them to represent clients in a comprehensive and cost-efficient manner. MHTL has a strong reputation in the legal community and is known throughout New England for its labor and employment practice as well as its extensive business litigation and advising employers on internal reviews and strategic legal approaches when dealing with the government. The firm also has an extensive education law practice representing public, private, and nonprofit educational institutions from pre-K through the college and university level.
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.