News
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Partner Presents “Recent Developments in ERISA”
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, Partner Katherine Hesse gave a plenary presentation on Recent Developments in ERISA on Friday September 16 to members of the Group Legal Services Association (“GLSA”) at its annual meeting in New Orleans. Among the topics she emphasized were what employers/plan sponsors need to know in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and lessons from the Court’s decision in Hughes and other class action litigation as to factors to consider in choosing and monitoring investment options in 401(k) plans. Other topics highlighted by Attorney Hesse included what recent litigation teaches about best practices for COBRA administration, DOL pronouncements on cybersecurity and cryptocurrency, DOL audit priorities, and other topics of interest to employers and benefit plan fiduciaries. The GLSA is a professional membership association affiliated with the American Bar Association and committed to advancing access to quality legal services through legal services plans and industry collaboration.
Ms. Hesse practices primarily in labor, employment and employee benefits law. She serves as counsel to Fortune 500 companies, emerging businesses, government, tax-exempt organizations and large Taft-Hartley and governmental trusts. She advises clients on employment and benefits issues, and has litigated employment and benefits cases before state and federal trial and appellate courts, administrative agencies and arbitrators. Ms. Hesse also served as a professional trustee for public and Taft-Hartley trust funds and as an expert witness, mediator and arbitrator of benefit fund disputes. She led her team of attorneys to be named the only firm in New England and one of only 11 in the United States to the special ERISA fiduciary litigation panel for one of the world’s largest insurance companies. She serves on the Board of Directors of the International Foundation and as Chair of its Government Liaison Committee, and sits on the editorial board of Benefits Quarterly and speaks and writes regularly on employment and benefits issues. Ms. Hesse, a CEBS Compliant ISCEBS Fellow, was inducted into the ISCEBS Hall of Fame in 2018. She received her B.A. degree from Smith College and her J.D. degree from the Boston University School of Law.
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