Matthew serves as Co-Chair of the Public Entity and Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group. His practice is concentrated in the defense of public entities in the areas of employment law and municipal liability. As well, he defends municipal and county governments, police departments, police officers and school boards in cases relating to civil rights, sexual harassment, age discrimination, race, ethnic, gender and handicap discrimination, and land use issues. Matthew also has vast experience in cases involving retaliation and whistle blowing under state law, and his practice involves both federal and state courts.
Further, Matthew has considerable experience in 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. He has represented various entities including Homeowners’ Associations in reasonable accommodation and disability discrimination cases and has recently obtained a summary judgment motion on behalf of a HOA involving the issue of emotional support animals.
Clients rely on Matthew to handle their most complex and high-exposure litigation. He has successfully settled numerous cases well below the initial demand, including a high-profile case involving allegations of bullying in a school district that received national attention. He understands the complexity of these cases and how they affect not only the clients, but the carriers as well, from both a litigation and reputational perspective.
Matthew was recently appointed to the District IV Ethics Committee by the New Jersey Supreme Court and is serving a four-year term from September 1, 2024 to August 31, 2028.
Matthew received his B.A. in Political Science from The Pennsylvania State University. He earned his juris doctor from Seton Hall School of Law in 1998. Following law school, Matthew served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable George L. Seltzer in Atlantic City.
Matthew joined Marshall Dennehey in 2003, bringing with him considerable employment law experience.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in Disability Discrimination Case
We successfully obtained summary judgment for a county in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. After being sent for a fitness-for-duty examination, a medical professional determined that the plaintiff was not fit for duty, leading to his termination. The court ruled in favor of the county, granting summary judgment on all claims and dismissing the case with prejudice.
Favorable Decision Obtained from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
We received a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a First Amendment case. The circuit court affirmed the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction in which the plaintiff claimed that federal and local officials violated her First Amendment rights through censorship and retaliation after she posted comments on Facebook. In a published decision, the Third Circuit agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing since she could not demonstrate a substantial risk of future harm specific to our client, the former chief of police of North Hanover, NJ, as well as the other co-defendants.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Employment Law
New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026
July 16, 2026
On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.
Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights
Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA
June 17, 2026
In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.” Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA.
