.

Ashley L. Toth

Portrait of Ashley L. Toth

Ashley is a member of the Professional Liability Department where she focuses her practice on the defense of public and private entities in the areas of employment law and civil rights. 

Ashley has successfully defended State and local governments, school districts, police departments and private employers in litigation involving civil rights, harassment/discrimination, and whistle-blowing violations. In addition, Ashley works with employers on a consulting basis to avoid liability by establishing appropriate employment policies and procedures and investigates internal EEO complaints.

Ashley also has significant experience representing public entities and private entities in matters involving the Fair Housing Act and American with Disabilities Act in federal and state courts and agencies as well as in the Division on Civil Rights and EEOC.  She has represented various entities including Homeowners’ Associations in reasonable accommodation and disability discrimination cases and has provided lectures at several seminars concerning the ADA and reasonable accommodation and the use of service animals.

Ashley graduated magna cum laude from Monmouth University in 2006 with a major in Finance and minor in Spanish. She began working with Marshall Dennehey in 2008 while attending law school at Rutgers University School of Law-Camden. Ashley graduated Rutgers School of Law in 2009, with high honors. 

    • Rutgers Law School (J.D., 2009)
    • Monmouth University (B.S., magna cum laude, 2006)
    • New Jersey, 2009
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • Reed Smith Award for Clinical Excellence, 2009
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • Annual Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Training, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, May 18, 2023
    • Employment Law Seminar, NJAA East Coast Expo, February 19, 2020
    • Employment Law Ethics Panel, NJAJ Boardwalk Seminar 2017, Atlantic City, NJ, April 2017
    • Navigating OSHA's New Rule on Injury and Illness Reporting & Anti-Retaliation, Human Resource Association of Southern New Jersey, Vineland, NJ, October 20, 2016
    • Social Media Issues in Employment: Mock Trial Panelist, presented to client group, Philadelphia, PA - May 2014
    • The New Jersey Tort Claims Act: Presented to insurance broker group for a global insurance carrier, New York, NY - February 2014
    • Co-presented: the Tri-Partite Relationship and Coverage Issues: Presented to insurance broker group for a global insurance carrier, New York, NY - November 2013
    • Anti-Discrimination Law in New Jersey: Risks, Responsibilities and Developments "What you need to know" - Client seminar, May 2013
    • Co-presented: New Anti-Bullying Laws in New Jersey, and How They Affect School Districts and Liability Under the NJLAD.  Presented to claims professionals for a global insurance carrier, New York, NY - October 2012
    • "Best Practices for Service Animals in the Workplace,"New Jersey Law Journal, March 12, 2024
    • "How Changing Cannabis Laws are Affecting HR Policies in New Jersey", New Jersey Defense, Spring 2021
    • "Post-Accident Drug Testing under OSHA’s New Rule," Defense Digest, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 2017
    • "Can Employers Contractually Limit an Employee’s Statute of Limitations? The Effect of Employment Contracts in New Jersey," Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 2016
    • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2013-present

Results

Thought Leadership

Best Practices for Service Animals in the Workplace

March 12, 2024

Service dogs are in high demand, not only in New Jersey, but across the country. Individuals with qualifying conditions rely on these animals to assist them in places of public accommodation, such as airports, hotels, stores and restaurants, and also in the workplace. As the number of service animals has increased, so have the laws governing them.

The ADA & Service Animals

September 22, 2023

As a place of public accommodation, you may face questions concerning the use of service animals in your establishment. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) specifically permit access to service animals in all places of public accommodation. This guide is designed to answer all of the important questions you may have relating to the use of service animals.  What is a service animal?  According to Title II and III of the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog or miniature horse that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. Service animals can benefit individuals with a wide range of disabilities, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual or other mental disability.  What tasks can a service animal perform?  Some tasks include: assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation; alerting a person with hearing loss to a sound; assisting an individual during a seizure; reminding a person to take a medication; providing physical support with balance and stability, etc. How can I confirm whether it is a service animal?  When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, an establishment may only ask two questions:  Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?  What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?  Can I ask for medical documentation or proof of training for the service animal?  No. You are not permitted to request medical documentation evidencing a disability or proof of training for the service animal. Service animals are not required to attend a specific certification or training course to be considered a bona fide service animal. Service animals are not required to wear an approved vest indicating that the animal is a service animal.  Does a dog need to be registered as a service animal?  No. There is not a central database of approved “service animals” under the ADA or NJLAD. There is no regulatory oversight of service animal training programs by state or federal government.  Where can a service animal go?  Anywhere the general public is permitted to go, including restaurants, classrooms, school buses and school grounds. See N.J.S.A. § 18A:46-13.2-13.3 and the ADA. The service animals must remain with their handler at all times. Furthermore, the service animal must be harnessed, leashed or tethered, unless the individual’s disability prevents using these devices or they interfere with the service animal’s safe, effective performance of tasks.  There are some circumstances where the presence of a service animal can pose a direct threat to others or change the fundamental nature of the business and, therefore, the service animal can be excluded. For example, a service animal may be excluded from a zoo where the animals on display are the natural prey or natural predators of dogs. Additionally, a service animal may be excluded from a sterile operating room in a hospital.  When can you exclude a service animal?  A service animal can be removed from the premises if: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal’s handler does not take effective action to control the animal, or (2) the animal is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.  

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.