Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Partners Present “Navigating the MA PFML”
Attorneys Kier Wachterhauser and Nan ONeill, both Partners at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, presented a training on Massachusetts’ Paid Family Medical Leave (“MA PFML”) this week. The presentation, titled “Navigating the MA PFML”, provided important information for employers and employees to know on the subject. The training began with a PFML refresher which includes the basic information of who’s eligible, reasons for leave, length of leave (including intermittent leave), and benefits and protection. After their refresher, they began by outlining a comparison between federal FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) and MA PFML. Their next topic was on the integration of MA PFML with other leave and disability laws and employer policies, including concurrence and reasonable accommodation. The end of the training focused on a best practices checklist, a useful tool for any employer in the event of an employee taking leave.
Mr. Wachterhauser is a Partner at MHTL and represents private and public sector clients in all areas of labor and employment law while maintaining a general litigation practice within the firm. He regularly counsels clients on employment matters, including wage and hour, leave entitlements, and discrimination and harassment matters, as well as the drafting of employment policies and contracts, and represents clients in employment-related litigation before state and federal courts and administrative bodies. Additionally, he maintains an extensive labor practice, representing clients in the collective bargaining process, arbitration hearings, and proceedings in front of a variety of administrative agencies. He is a regular speaker at industry and trade groups, chambers of commerce, and other organizations on a wide range of labor and employment topics, and he conducts workplace training for organizations of all sizes. Mr. Wachterhauser received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law, where he served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Boston University Law Review.
Ms. ONeill is a Partner at the firm with 30 years of experience counseling and representing employers in all aspects of traditional labor law and employment. She has extensive experience in labor arbitration and litigation of employment-related disputes, including discrimination, sexual harassment and wrongful termination matters, before state and federal courts and administrative agencies such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Ms. ONeill’s experience as a traditional labor lawyer includes negotiating collective bargaining agreements and representing employers in labor arbitrations, unfair labor practice proceedings, and union election and decertification proceedings, with a concentration on acute care hospitals. She also counsels clients on a day-to-day basis on employment compliance issues. Additionally, Ms. ONeill frequently conducts manager training sessions on topical legal issues, and is often called upon to conduct internal investigations including complaints of harassment, discrimination, and ethical violations. Ms. ONeill is a graduate of Boston College and the Georgetown University Law Center, where she served as Articles and Notes Editor of the American Criminal Law Review.
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.