.

Lee C. Durivage

Chair, Employment Law

Chair, School Leaders' Liability

LCDurivage@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Lee C. Durivage

Lee is a shareholder and the Chair of the Employment Law Practice Group, where he represents employers in the full spectrum of discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, including claims pursuant to Title VII, the ADA public accommodation, the ADEA, the FMLA, whistleblower, housing discrimination and related tort claims. He is experienced in handling wage and hour lawsuits, including class and collective actions, pursuant to the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Additionally, Lee serves as the Vice Chair of the firm's School Leaders' Liability Practice Group. He routinely defends school districts, charter schools and other academic institutions in civil rights litigation, as well as in special education due process matters alleging violations of the IDEA and related federal and state statutes.

Lee serves as lead counsel for clients from a wide range of industries, including construction, manufacturing, restaurant and hospitality, education, real estate development, health care and non-profit organizations. He has served as lead counsel in a number of employment litigation matters in federal court and state court, as well as before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. Additionally, Lee advises clients on how to avoid employment disputes altogether by counseling them on compliance with federal, state and local laws with respect to hiring, discipline, medical leave and terminations, as well as conducting workplace investigations and creating and updating employment policies and procedures to proactively manage employee relations.

In 2004, Lee graduated from Syracuse University with a double major in Communications & Rhetorical Studies and Political Science. Following graduation, he attended Widener University School of Law, receiving his juris doctor, cum laude, in 2007 and was awarded a Business Organization Law Certificate, with honors. During his time in law school, Lee served as an administrative board member of the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law and as a member of the Moe Levine Trial Advocacy Honor Society. He joined Marshall Dennehey as a summer associate in May 2006 and continued to work with the firm during his final year of law school. Following graduation, Lee returned to the firm as an associate in August 2007.

In addition to his employment practice, Lee has experience litigating environmental, toxic tort and professional liability matters. He has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer: Rising Star by Philadelphia Magazine in the area of Employment Litigation: Defense in from 2012 through 2021. Rising Stars are chosen by their peers as being among the top-up-and-coming lawyers in Pennsylvania. Only 2.5 percent of Pennsylvania attorneys receive this honor each year.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2007)
    • Syracuse University (B.S., 2004)
    • Pennsylvania, 2007
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2007
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2014
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2012-2022)
    • American Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Hot Topics in Employment Law, PBA Law Firm Administrators Conference, April 30, 2025
    • EPL – You Have Headaches, We Have Solutions, Public Risk Management Association Conference, Long Beach, CA, June 2023
    • Best Practices in Handling Employment Issues, Motor Carrier Insurance Education Foundation, November 2015
    • EPL Training, Berkley Mid-Atlantic Group, co-presenter, June 26, 2014
    • Social Media & Cyber Breaches: the Internet's Impact on Your Business, The Graham Company, co-presenter, May 2014
    • "The EEOC's Litigation Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,"The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2024
    • "EEOC's Expansion of Accommodations Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,"Pennsylvania Law Weekly, December 13, 2023
    • "The State of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, November 22, 2016
    • "EEOC’s Proposed Guidance Expands the Scope of Retaliation," Legal Updates for Employment Law, February 2016
    • "Avoiding Penalties When Classifying Independent Contractors,"The Legal Intelligencer, Employment Law Supplement, June 30, 2015
    • "Pennsylvania Employment Law Update," Counterpoint, newsletter of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, 2008-present
    • "Avoiding Age Discrimination Claims in Succession Planning," The Legal Intelligencer, June 11, 2013
    • "When Does Striving for a Health Workforce Violate the Law?," The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2012
    • "The Continued Expansion of the ADA: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Updated Regulations In Light of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act," Counterpoint, newsletter of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, Oct. 2011
    • "Undue Hardship: the Employer's Burden Under the ADAAA," The Legal Intelligencer, June 15, 2011
    • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2008-2018

Results

View all

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.

Unanimous Defense Verdict Secured in Fourth Amendment Civil Rights Trial

We obtained a defense verdict in a Fourth Amendment civil rights trial before Judge Michael Baylson in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that a public agency violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching and seizing his personal property after his vehicle was impounded. The defense witnesses each testified that the vehicle was never searched by the public agency and that the public agency does not have a policy or custom of searching vehicles once they are impounded, which was an essential element of plaintiff’s constitutional violation claim. After less than 15 minutes of deliberation, the jury unanimously found that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the public agency violated his constitutional rights, granting judgment in favor of the public agency defendant.  

Thought Leadership

View all

The EEOC's Litigation Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

November 8, 2024

Since the law went into effect, the EEOC has reported that it has received more than 2,000 charges alleging violation of the PWFA. In addition, the EEOC has recently filed several lawsuits against employers who have allegedly violated the PWFA, which provides accommodations for pregnant, and postpartum, applicants and employees.

EEOC's Expansion of Accommodations Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

December 14, 2023

The law requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to a worker's known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.