Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Back To In-Person For Their 2023 Annual Labor & Employment Law Update
On April 6, 2023, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP hosted their Annual Labor & Employment Law Update, in collaboration with the South Shore Chamber of Commerce, Neponset River Regional Chamber of Commerce, Quincy Chamber of Commerce, and the Metro South Chamber of Commerce. The presentation was held in-person for the first time since COVID-19, with a keynote address by Antony Sheehan, President and CEO of Aspire Health Alliance, followed by several of the firm’s attorneys presenting on various legal topics.
During his keynote address, Mr. Sheehan discussed the challenges employers face when employees experience mental health issues and the assistance or initiatives that employers can offer, which led into the first presentation, titled “Mental Health in the Workplace: Navigating the Legal Implications When Employees Experience Mental Health Issues”. Attorneys Nan ONeill and Kier Wachterhauser were joined by Marybeth Hasenfuss, and outlined important information regarding mental health in the workplace, including legal rights, reasonable accommodation, confidentiality and privacy rights, leave options, and resources such as legal and medical. Attorney Wachterhauser presented a case law update highlighting notable federal and Massachusetts cases from 2022 and 2023, followed by Attorney Sarah Spatafore’s statutory and regulatory update. Among the topics were the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Speak Out Act, the Crown Act, and other related updates. Attorneys Michael Maccaro and Joseph Proctor then presented “Labor Law for Everyone: What Every Employer Needs to Know”, giving an overview of recent changes in the law at the NLRB which effect all employers, whether union or non-union. The final presentation was “Navigating Paid Medical and Family Leave in Massachusetts”, during which Attorneys Spatafore and Murphy focused on PFML, related leave laws affecting all employers, and the myriad of challenges employers are still facing.
Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP has been presenting their annual Labor & Employment Law Update for many years. As 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.