PRACTICE AREAS

Non-Profit

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, has decades of experience representing non-profits throughout New England.  We represent some of the largest non-profits in the region as well as many smaller organizations – our firm has the flexibility to provide for the needs of all non-profit entities.

We have extensive experience representing the following non-profit sectors:

  • Arts & Culture
  • Education & Youth
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Housing/Community Development
  • Human Services
  • Philanthropy

We represent these entities in a wide array of matters including:

  • Formation and incorporation
  • Tax exemption issues
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Board governance
  • Labor, employment and benefit plan issues
  • The relationship between public and private entities
  • Contract negotiations
  • Medicare and Medicaid compliance
  • Unrelated business taxable income issues/maintenance of non-profit status
  • Fundraising compliance issues
  • Department of education/student loan compliance issues

Our reasonable rates combined with our extensive experience in non-profit business law, employment and benefits law, and governmental law ensures that our non-profit clients receive the best possible representation designed to further the successes of their organizations. We do well for those who do good.

Contact us today if you have questions about Non-Profit

HESSE, KATHRYN

Katherine A. Hesse

Partner

(617) 479-5000 khesse@mhtl.com

Katherine Hesse is one of the founding partners of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP. Ms. Hesse concentrates her practice primarily in labor and employment and employee benefits law serving as counsel to individuals, business, government, and tax exempt organizations including hospitals, colleges, churches, and major private and public retirement and health plans. She has litigated numerous employment and benefits cases before the state and federal trial and appellate courts, administrative agencies and arbitrators. She is also an active practitioner Read More

Latest News

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).

Legal Updates

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

Join Our Newsletter


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: MURPHY HESSE TOOMEY LEHANE LLC, 50 Braintree Hill Office Park, Braintree, MA, 02184, http://www.mhtl.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

© 2023 Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Interactive Palette