Marshall Dennehey has been a pioneer in providing regional defense representation to insurers and self-insured organizations for over 60 years. From offices conveniently located near the state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio and New York, the attorneys of our Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group have extensive experience successfully representing and defending all manner of public risk claims and litigated disputes involving municipalities, school districts and other public corporations, including their officials and employees.
Public entity liability encompasses a broad range of claims against local governments, including police departments, zoning officers, public works agencies and school districts. Our attorneys commonly defend local governments against claims in the nature of:
- Law enforcement liability for wrongful search and seizure, excessive force, improper vehicular pursuit, false arrest, and malicious prosecution under state law and the federal civil rights statutes;
- Claims against public school districts alleging improper student discipline, inappropriate student contact, bullying and sexual abuse;
- Land use regulation and permit disputes brought under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and state zoning laws;
- Due process claims under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, First Amendment protected speech claims, discrimination claims and student transportation accidents;
- Employment practices liability claims of all descriptions brought under state and/or federal law, including discrimination claims lodged with the EEOC and the equivalent state administrative investigation agencies;
- State tort claims for personal injuries and property damages brought under the governmental immunity statutes and laws unique to each state;
- Claims against elected officials alleging political, gender or racial discrimination, defamation or violations of rights to freedom of speech, equal protection, due process of law and freedom from retaliation.
Our attorneys regularly collaborate with each other to discuss litigation tactics, case resolution strategies and developments in the law, providing our clients with the assurance they will receive uniformly high-quality representation. We handle every case with a practical, results-oriented approach that balances strong representation with realistic cost containment.
Results
Directed Verdict Obtained in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Case
We obtained a directed verdict in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case filed against a national trucking company after two days of trial. The plaintiff was a laborer who assisted a truck driver making deliveries to a retail store. The driver admitted to making sexually explicit comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued the comments were made due to his race (African American) and were protected under the LAD. Jillian and Len argued that the comments were offensive to anyone who heard them and had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race. At trial, the judge agreed that the language used by the truck driver, however offensive it was, could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD as it was not based on a protected category as alleged by the plaintiff. The judge dismissed the case.
Dismissal of Police Officers Secured Via Sanctions Imposed
We had our clients dismissed via sanctions imposed. On Jan. 6, 2011, Charles Sample was arrested by officers of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Narcotics Field Unit. The plaintiff alleged the officers seized $40,000 in cash from his vehicle, falsified a search warrant affidavit, disregarded proper procedures and withheld exculpatory evidence, leading to drug charges. The plaintiff entered a guilty plea for probation to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. On Jan. 6, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, and the charges were nolle prossed. The plaintiff filed his initial complaint on Jan. 4, 2019, alleging federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. Due to related litigation involving the Narcotics Field Unit, the case was placed in suspense on March 10, 2020, and restored to the active docket on Nov. 15, 2023. On April 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting six causes of action: § 1983 claims for fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, malicious prosecution, civil rights conspiracy, municipal liability (against the City of Philadelphia), and state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conversion. On Aug. 5, 2025, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the individual police officer defendants under FRCP Rule 37(b) for failure to comply with discovery orders, with prejudice. Applying the Poulis factors, the court found the plaintiff personally responsible for nearly two years of non-communication with his counsel, which prejudiced the police officers by delaying trial preparation and demonstrated a history of dilatoriness without reasonable excuse. Lesser sanctions were deemed ineffective due to the plaintiff’s prolonged unresponsiveness, and the merits of his claims could not be evaluated, rendering this factor neutral. The City’s motion to join the police officers’ sanctions motion was denied, as they did not move to compel discovery or demonstrate the plaintiff’s violation of a related court order.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Third Circuit Broadens CHRIA’s Scope in Pennsylvania Employment Law
April 1, 2026
The Third Circuit clarified the scope of Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), holding that the statute applies even when an employer learns of a criminal conviction directly from the job applicant. Plaintiff Rodney Phath applied for a truck driver position with Central Transport and received an interview because he had relevant experience, appeared to be a good candidate with a commercial driver’s license, and had federal clearance to access secure ports. During the hiring process, Central Transport said it would check his criminal record, so Phath voluntarily disclosed a 15-year-old armed robbery conviction for which he spent six years in prison. The employer immediately rejected his application based on that conviction. Phath sued, alleging violations of CHRIA, which limits how employers may consider history in hiring decisions. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that CHRIA did not apply because the employer learned of the conviction from the applicant rather than from the state. Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act limits disclosure and use of “criminal history record information.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9101–9183. That includes “[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies” about a person's description, arrests, indictments, convictions, and the like, and prospective employers may request that information from state agencies. §§ 9102, 9113(e), 9121(b), 9125. The issue is whether the Act covered the plaintiff’s own disclosure. When an employer is in receipt of the information which is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file, the employer may use the applicant’s prior convictions for the purpose of deciding whether or not to hire the applicant § 9125(a); but employers may use those convictions “only to the extent to which they relate to the applicant’s suitability” for the job. § 91125(b). If the employer rejects the applicant because of the criminal history information, it must give the applicant written notice of that decision. § 9125(c). The plaintiff alleged violations of subsections (b) and (c), but the dispute was over subsection (a), as Central Transport had not attempted to show that the plaintiff’s conviction made him unsuitable to drive their trucks, nor that they notified him of this rejection in writing. Central Transport argued the Act did not apply because it acquired the information from plaintiff, not from a state agency. The Third Circuit rejected this argument and reversed, holding that CHRIA applies whenever an employer is in receipt of criminal history information that is part of an applicant’s criminal history record, regardless of the source of that information.
Case Law Alerts
Appellate Division Reverses Summary Judgment for Failure to Conduct Required In‑Camera OPRA Review
April 1, 2026
The appellate division reversed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment because it did not conduct an in-camera review of documents under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). The trial court improperly relied upon the state’s certification as to the documents sought. This case is significant because it further provides direction to trial courts that an in-camera review of the documents is best practices in deciding motions for summary judgment as to alleged violations of the OPRA, simply on the briefs and certifications submitted.
