News
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Attorney Elected President to the Massachusetts Association of Public Pension Attorneys
Mathew L. Feeney, an attorney with Murphy, Hesse. Toomey & Lehane, LLP, has recently been appointed President of the Massachusetts Association of Public Pension Attorneys (“MAPPA”). MAPPA is an organization of attorneys, all of whom practice public retirement law, and represent public contributory retirement boards in Massachusetts. This organization is dedicated to safeguard the integrity of Massachusetts’ public pension system, regional and local retirement boards within the Commonwealth, and the rights and benefits of public employees and beneficiaries, whether active or retired. In addition, MAPPA provides its members with the ability and knowledge to assist, support and education their retirement board clients on ethical and fiduciary stands in plan administration, policy, development, and fund operation. Attorney Katherine Hesse, a Partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, is also an active member of MAPPA and has been a member of the organization for several years.
Matthew L. Feeney has overall responsibility for MHTL’s Chapter 32 practice and is well versed in matters pertinent to the statute. Specifically, he provides frequent guidance to public retirement boards on the litany of member related issues that arise, such as disabilities, forfeitures, and QDRO’s and he frequently represents public retirement boards before DALA. With nearly fifteen years of experience as an Assistant District Attorney in both Essex and Suffolk Counties prior to joining MHTL several years ago, Mr. Feeney is an experienced litigator. In addition to his Chapter 32 work, Mr. Feeney also provides internal reviews and investigations for public entities continues to serve as a trial lawyer.
Mr. Feeney is a graduate of Boston Latin School, Boston College and Boston College Law School. Mr. Feeney is admitted to practice in Massachusetts and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
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