Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Presents Their Labor and Employment Law Update in Collaboration with the Greater Merrimack Valley Human Resource Association
On April 7, 2022 Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP presented their Labor & Employment Law Update, sponsored by the Greater Merrimack Valley Human Resource Association. Several of the firm’s attorneys presented on various topics, including Kier Wachterhauser, Michael Maccaro, Sarah Spatafore, Kathryn Murphy, Clifford Rhodes and Rachel Millette, as well as a member of the firm’s advisory board, Charles Desmond. Attorney Kier Wachterhauser began the presentation with a 2021-2022 case law update, including cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Judicial Court, and other notable cases from the past year. Attorney Rachel Millette’s session focused on federal and Massachusetts statutory and regulatory updates, which included updates on the EEOC, MCAD, PFML, the withdrawal of Trump-era FLSA regulations, and more. The next topic was presented by Attorneys Kathy Murphy and Cliff Rhodes titled “Remote Workforce and Employment Law Considerations”. During their presentation they talked about the strategic, operational and legal considerations of remote work, as well as provided information on tax withholding for telecommuters in Massachusetts. Attorneys Michael Maccaro and Sarah Spatafore presented together on “Hiring in a Tight Labor Market: Avoiding Legal Pitfalls Now & Later”, where they broke down the hiring process into 6 categories: postings, interview, offer, background checks, using social media in hiring, and onboarding. The presentation concluded with the topic of diversity, equity and inclusion, presented by Attorney Nan ONeill and Charles Desmond of MHTL’s advisory board, and was titled “DEI: Looking Through the Legal Lens”. Ms. ONeill and Mr. Desmond described typical DEI litigation that arises, and outlined how to prevent those claims from occurring, as well as how to defend against those claims if they do occur.
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.