News
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Attorney Moderates a Roundtable Discussion on Public Records for the MMLA
Attorney Karis North from Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP was the moderator for a Roundtable discussion on Public Records Law, hosted by the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers Association (MMLA). The panelists included Shawn Williams, the Director of Public Records for the City of Boston, Stephen Roche of the City of Springfield Solicitor’s Office and Jack Collins, the General Counsel to the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. The discussion had an emphasis on the recent changes to the Public Records Law by the Police Reform Law. In addition, the panelists discussed the issues identified by responding to requests, consistent supervisor determinations as to how to handle requests, how to handle responding to the volume of requests that the change in the law has initiated, and the potential for further guidance from litigation.
Karis L. North is an attorney at the Firm and has been practicing municipal and public sector law since 2006 and has over twenty years of experience counseling and resolving complex disputes for public clients. She is also an experienced litigator on behalf of municipalities and municipal agencies, private parties, and non-profit organizations. Her practice is focused on counseling and advocacy on behalf of municipal governments and agencies. Ms. North has a B.S. from Cornell University and received her J.D. cum laude from Vermont Law School, where she was the Managing Editor of the Vermont Law Review. She is admitted to practice in state and federal courts in Massachusetts, in the state of Maryland, and before the Supreme Court of the United States. Active in the community, Ms. North is a Director of the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyer’s Association and a member of the Vermont Law School Board of Trustees, where she chairs the Governance Committee. She was also recently appointed to the inaugural Plymouth County Commission on the Status of Women and was elected to the position of Chairwoman by her sister Commissioners.
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