Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Attorneys Receive Favorable Decision in Motion to Dismiss
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Attorneys were triumphant after filing a partial motion to dismiss on behalf of their client Easecare, LLC, et al. Attorneys Kevin Freytag and Sarah Spatafore represented the defendant in the case of Kenn v. Easecare, LLC after the plaintiff filed two state law claims and two putative class action claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The plaintiff alleges that the Disclosure Form she signed upon being hired did not provide a “clear and conspicuous disclosure to job applicants…”, and therefore resulted in a violation of privacy. Upon review of the facts, the District Court ruled in favor of the defendants largely due to the fact that the plaintiff had never announced she was confused by the form or unaware what she was signing, and her complaints to the Court only reference theoretical injuries. Furthermore, the Court stated that her signature on the form undermined any claims made since she had not alleged to misunderstanding the form or the authorization.
Ms. Spatafore, a Partner at the firm, practices primarily in the labor and employment area, representing both public and private clients. Ms. Spatafore also handles education issues. She regularly conducts seminars and training programs on unlawful harassment, preventing discrimination, and a variety of other labor and employment issues. Ms. Spatafore has completed all the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination-certified “Train-the-Trainer” courses. Ms. Spatafore graduated from Bates College in 2007. She received her Juris Doctor, with Honors, from Boston College Law School in 2012. In law school, Ms. Spatafore interned at the Massachusetts Superior Court. Prior to matriculating with the firm, Ms. Spatafore worked for a presidential campaign as a law clerk and was sent to a targeted swing state to serve as the Election Day Operations Director for the general election.
Kevin S. Freytag is a member of the firm’s Litigation practice. He represents individuals, businesses and municipalities in a wide range of disputes in the areas of construction, labor and employment, land use and real-estate tax. He has also effectively represented clients at the Appellate Tax Board as well as the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Mr. Freytag received his Juris Doctor from Suffolk University Law School. He was a member of the Trial Team and earned the honor of 2006 New England National Trial Competition Regional Champion. Mr. Freytag received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Stonehill College. Before entering private practice, he spent five years working at the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office where he prosecuted countless cases in District and Superior Court. Mr. Freytag is admitted to practice in all state courts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
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.