The employment law attorneys of Marshall Dennehey concentrate their practice on the representation of employers in all areas of employment-related litigation and counseling. Annually, our attorneys handle hundreds of employment matters for clients, including insurers and their insureds, self-insured Fortune 1000 companies, joint insurance funds, state governments and local municipalities. Litigation matters are handled in each of the jurisdictions in which we practice and cover the full range of employment-related claims under the relevant federal and state statutes and local ordinances. They include but are not limited to:
- Age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Sex, race, national origin and religion discrimination claims under Title VII
- Disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
- Section 1981 and Section 1983 civil rights claims
- Common law wrongful discharge claims
- Employment-related defamation claims
- Claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act
- Claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state statutes
In addition to handling employment law litigation matters, we provide our clients with a full range of advisory services in order to help them avoid litigation. These services include but are not limited to:
- Staff training on employment-related topics at client’s location
- Review and/or draft employment handbooks
- Reviews of client employment policies/procedures
- Advise clients on their specific, breaking employment issues, as they arise
A significant strength of our firm is the regional representation we provide insurers and self-insureds. We have 19 offices and can handle employment matters throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Ohio and Florida. The attorneys in the Employment Law Practice Group have the requisite local knowledge and experience to provide highly-skilled and effective representation to our clients who face employment-related litigation or have employment-related issues in any of those jurisdictions.
We always handle every case with a practical, result-oriented approach which balances strong representation of our clients with realistic cost containment. Our fees are very competitive, and we work with our clients to develop innovative alternative approaches to file handling and billing which oftentimes result in significant savings to our clients.
Results
Defense Verdict Obtained in Two Consolidated Matters Following a Five-Day Trial
We obtained a defense verdict in two consolidated matters in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following a five-day trial before Judge Gallagher. The first plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for filing a lawsuit and that he was subjected to racial discrimination during his employment. The second plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for supporting the wage and hour claims of the first plaintiff. After deliberating for approximately two hours, the jury answered “no” on the five theories asserted by the plaintiffs.
Obtained a “No Cause” Verdict in an Employment Case in New Jersey
We recently obtained a “no cause” verdict in an employment case in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, an employee of a New Jersey State entity, asserted violations of the Contentious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). According to the plaintiff, after reporting purported deficiencies with an environmental permit, he was subject to a retaliatory and hostile work environment. We successfully argued that the plaintiff did not articulate a violation of law or public policy, nor did he prove that the various employment actions he received created a hostile work environment or were even caused by the alleged whistleblowing.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Appellate Division Rejects Plaintiff’s Belatedly-Added Theory of Disability Discrimination and Finds a One-Time Allergic Reaction to Prescription Medication Does Not Constitute a Disability Under the LAD
April 1, 2026
The plaintiff appealed from the grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing her claims of disability discrimination under the LAD. The plaintiff, who was employed as a special education aide, was terminated following a “narcotic drug-induced medical emergency” after taking prescribed medications for sciatica pain. She thereafter filed suit, citing sciatica pain as her alleged disability, contending that her termination was motivated by discriminatory animus. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial court erred in failing to find that she established a prima facie case of disability discrimination based on two separate alleged disabilities: (1) her sciatica and (2) her alleged severe allergy to medications, which was not cited as an alleged disability in the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no evidence that the plaintiff was terminated, nor discriminatorily treated, because of her sciatica. With respect to the allegation that her allergic reaction to medication constituted a disability, the Appellate Division, citing Stewart v. N.J. Tpk. Auth./Garden State Parkway, 249 N.J. 642, 648 (2022), noted that “[g]enerally, parties may not use a motion for summary judgment to introduce new claims or theories.” Nonetheless, in considering whether a one-time allergic reaction constitutes a disability under the LAD, the court found, citing Guzman v. Teixeira Int’l, Inc., 476 N.J. Super. 64, 70 (App. Div. 2023), that a single allergic reaction to medication did not qualify as a disability under the LAD, stating that the plaintiff could not prove that the termination was motivated by discrimination. In light of this decision, defense counsel should be cognizant of the introduction of new theories of liability added at the summary judgment stage, and should also recognize that not every illness will constitute a disability under the LAD.
Case Law Alerts
EDPA Upholds Summary Judgment for Employer, Finding Incivility Alone Doesn’t Violate Discrimination Laws
April 1, 2026
In Pelphrey-Weingand, the plaintiff was the defendant’s assistant director/clinical supervisor – effectively the second in command. The plaintiff claimed she was subjected to “incessant mistreatment,” discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful mismanagement. Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated just over a year into her tenure for poor performance. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted fifteen state and federal claims relating to unlawful discrimination, whistleblower, and retaliation claims. She alleged that she was the victim of discrimination based on age, disability, worker’s compensation status, race, religion, refusal to violate the FMLA, refusal to violate the Adult Protective Services Act, whistleblower status, and refusal to commit an unlawful act. In addressing plaintiff’s claims, the court specifically noted the “kitchen sink” complaint. In addressing the fact that the plaintiff alleged that the defendant employer discriminated against her on “almost every protected class imaginable,” the court stated, “[w]hile an employer so broadly hateful is, perhaps, not impossible, such allegations by their very nature strain credulity to its outer limits.” The court continued, “[t]his Court has significant doubts that any but the most specific and meritorious ‘kitchen sink’ complaint could possibly clear the bar set collectively by Twombly, Iqbal, and Rule 11.” Even after being given the opportunity to narrow her claims, the plaintiff indicated that she intended to pursue all fifteen. As a result, the court spent time addressing each claim in its opinion, noting instances where co-workers may have been unkind to her and likely did not like her, the defendant employer advanced a “fulsome record” regarding the plaintiff’s failure to satisfactorily complete her job duties. The plaintiff received multiple written warnings, plans of correction, numerous one-on-one supervisions, and a final written warning before her termination. Several of the issues that the plaintiff received warnings about could have put the licensure of the defendant employer at risk. The court found that the defendant employer had put forth significant evidence showing that the decisionmaker had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to terminate plaintiff’s employment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on all by the plaintiff’s wage payment and collection. With regard to that claim, the court held that it was unwilling to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and directed that plaintiff could bring the claim in state court if she chose. The court noted that while the record did show that co-workers may have harbored some “poor feelings” for the plaintiff, were likely unkind to plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not the best social fit for the defendant employer, non-discrimination statutes do not codify a general code of civility. The plaintiff could not prove, based on the record, that any discrimination occurred. The court concluded that this case is a cautionary tale for “borderline” cases - instead of filing “kitchen sink” complaint, parties should take an “acute and sharpened approach,” and focus on their best arguments.
