Rachel is a member of the Professional Liability Department, where she focuses her practice in the areas of employment law, civil rights, and education. As to the latter, Rachel handles special education matters arising under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act at both the administrative and federal district court levels. She has also litigated Title IX claims and presented to local school districts on their Title IX obligations.
In 2021, Rachel graduated magna cum laude from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and was inducted to the Order of the Coif legal honor society. She was a recipient of the Dorothy Day Award, which recognizes students who have completed fifty hours or more of pro bono service during their time in law school.
As a law student, Rachel was involved in numerous extracurricular activities. She was a Staff Writer and Managing Editor of Student Works for the Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, as well as a member of Villanova’s National Trial Team. She also worked as a research assistant in the areas of both sports law and tax law, conducting research into such varied topics as the impact of name/image/likeness legislation on college athletics, the sports industry’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the relationship between the income tax system and executive compensation.
In addition, Rachel held multiple internships and volunteer positions during her time at Villanova, working as a summer clerk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a Legal Services Coordinator for Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, and a Student Attorney for the Villanova University Clinic for Law & Entrepreneurship.
After graduating, Rachel was a law clerk for The Honorable Terrence R. Nealon in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, and later an Associate Attorney with a Brooklyn-based law firm focusing on performing arts immigration.
Results
Dismissal Affirmed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
We successfully convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County’s grant of our preliminary objections and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus. In its complaint in mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff argued that our client’s letter denying its plan and application for the development of solar panels was insufficient under the Municipalities Planning Code, thus entitling it to a deemed approval of its plan. We had successfully filed preliminary objections to the complaint on the grounds that the Township’s letter, which identified the plan’s defects with specific reference to provisions of the Municipal Planning Code that had not been satisfied, was sufficient under Section 508 of the Municipal Planning Code. This section requires that, when a municipality denies an application for approval of a development plan, “the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or ordinance relied upon.” 53 P.S. Section 10508(2). The plaintiff appealed the decision, and we attended oral argument before the Commonwealth Court, following which the court affirmed the decision of the lower court on the same grounds.
Summary Judgment Obtained in Complicated Case Brought Against Two Pennsylvania School Districts
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two school districts in a matter brought by various plaintiffs against the Career and Technology Center of Lackawanna County (CTC) and four of its sending school districts. The plaintiffs had asserted claims under Title IX, the 14th Amendment, and Section 8542(b)(9) of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act based on their sexual abuse by an automotive technology instructor at CTC. While permitting some claims to proceed against CTC, the court dismissed all claims against the sending school districts on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any individual at any of the defendant-school districts had actual knowledge of the automotive technology instructor’s conduct, and the instructor was not an employee, independent contractor or ostensible agent of any school district by virtue of his employment by CTC.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group
July 8, 2026
Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation. Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the U.S. Department of Education
November 1, 2025
Education Department Layoffs Hit Offices that Oversee Special Education and Civil Rights Enforcement On October 17, 2025, 466 Education Department staffers were laid off amidst an ongoing federal government shutdown. As a result, the Department’s workforce was reduced by nearly a fifth. Of special note, nearly all workers were discharged from the office that implements the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with only a small number of top officials remaining. Additionally, many employees of the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination at U.S. schools and universities, have been fired; however, the precise number of these employees is unknown. Rachel Gittleman, the president of AFGE Local 252, which represents over 2,700 Education Department workers, issued a statement expressing her concern that the layoffs would “double down on the harm to K-12 students, students with disabilities, first generation college students, low-income students, teachers and local education boards.” For more information, see: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/education-department-layoffs-hit-offices-that-oversee-special-education-and-civil-rights-enforcement. Legal Update for Special Education Law – November 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.
