.

Sharon M. O'Donnell

Shareholder

SMOdonnell@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Sharon M. O'Donnell

Sharon is a highly experienced professional liability attorney who defends private and public entities in a wide array of education law, employment law and civil rights litigation. Her clients range from self-insured corporations, to school districts and other private and public entities insured under errors & omissions, directors & officers, professional liability and employment liability practices insurance policies. 

Sharon has successfully defended some of the most high-profile school district litigation in the state of Pennsylvania. She defends school districts in due process matters brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and related federal and state statutes where a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is typically disputed, or related educational services are challenged relating to both gifted and disabled students. She has defended clients before the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Special Education Office for Dispute Resolution. 

In the arena of employment law, Sharon defends claims alleging unlawful discrimination, wrongful termination and retaliation matters involving Title VII actions, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and other similar federal statutes. She has also defended lawsuits brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. She is accustomed to defending employment law clients in actions brought before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Civil Rights.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1996)
    • King's College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1990)
    • Pennsylvania, 1997
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005)
    • Harrisburg Style Magazine, December, 2015, "Select Lawyers," (peer rated) in Education and Employment Discrimination Law
    • American Bar Association
    • Dauphin County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Education Law and related statutory and legal updates to various school districts, insurance companies and professional associations, 2005-2015
    • Employment Law and related statutory and legal updates to various school districts, insurance companies and professional associations, 2005-2015
    • Pennsylvania Special Education Law Seminar, National Business Institute, December 2, 2011
    • Lawfully Managing Student Records Without Violating Privacy Rights, National Business Institute, June 6, 2013
    • Hot Topics in Employment Law, Cumberland County Society for Human Resource Managers, 2002
    • "U.S. Supreme Court Pulls the Plug on DOMA and Opens the Floodgates to Litigation," Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 2013
    • "A Judgment that Doesn't Bear Repeating," PBA Civil Litigation Section Newsletter, Civil Litigation Update, Vol. 6, No. 1, Winter, 2001
    • "Plaintiff Rues Preclusive Effect of Workers' Compensation Decision in Third Party Tort Action," Defense Digest, June Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000
    • "Pennsylvania Bar Claims for Sexual Assault Where Repressed Memory Delays Commencement of Suit," Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 4, Oct., 1998
    • "Repressed Memory of Sexual Assault Does Not Trigger Discovery Rule," Pittsburgh Legal Journal, Vol. 123, No. 223 Daily Ed., Nov. 25, 1997
    • The School I Deserve, by Jo Napolitano, 2021. Sharon was interviewed and quoted in this book regarding her representation of the subject matter school district.
    • Summary judgment on behalf of an art store chain in a racial discrimination suit over a caricature drawing of a Black woman and her infant son. She, her father and father’s girlfriend, all visitors of a major Pennsylvania theme park, sued the owner of a park kiosk for race discrimination, retaliation and interference under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that they were drawn with exaggerated and offensive features rooted in harmful racial stereotypes. They also alleged they were kicked out of the park. The kiosk owner argued that while the caricatures might have been poorly drawn, they were not drawn in any manner intended to be offensive, and while they were happy to see the angry father leave their kiosk, the family was not kicked out of the park. The Judge determined on summary judgment that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs on all three claims and dismissed the action.
    • Defense Verdict:  Alleged racial discrimination case brought by a former African American seventh grade mathematics teacher for a suburban Philadelphia school district, who, although tenured, was informed by his union president that he could be terminated after two unsatisfactory performance evaluations.  Having already received one, and with one likely on the way, he chose to resign.  Three months thereafter he read his own name in the local newspaper amongst various racial slurs that had been exchanged between the former superintendent of the school district and its athletic director. A jury found that his separation from his employment was not based upon his race.
    • Defense verdict in favor of public school, administrators and professional staff alleged to have violated civil rights of freedom of speech, written expression and religious expression of students by disciplining them, up to and including expulsion, for protesting a dress code policy.
    • Directed verdict in favor of a public school board sued by a former member, represented by ACLU attorneys, on a theory of a First Amendment violation of free speech, among other claims, which were voluntarily abandoned prior to trial.
    • Defense verdict by a federal jury in favor of a local college in an alleged unlawful retaliation claim where all alleged Title VII race discrimination claims were voluntarily abandoned on the eve of trial.
    • Defense verdict by a county jury in favor of a credit collection agency alleged to have unlawfully withheld salary and commission to a former executive.
    • Defense verdict on ten separate counts of alleged unlawful gender discrimination by a federal jury in a three-week trial.
    • Defense verdict by county jury in favor of a medical professional by a former patient who alleged negligence in performing bilateral reduction mammoaplasties.
    • Summary judgment in a professional negligence action brought against a psychologist alleged to have breached the standard of care when she dated and married the husband of a client within two years of providing the last client service.
    • Summary judgment on various claims, including 42 U.S.C. 1983, brought in a complex federal court action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against a county District Attorney and his professional staff in which exemplary and significant compensatory damages were sought, resulting in an overall satisfactory outcome.
    • Summary judgment for a defendant general practice physician who provided medical care to a prison inmate who alleged First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the facility and its medical staff.
    • Summary judgment on behalf of a defendant breast surgeon alleged to have breached the standard of care in performing and following bilateral TRAM flap reconstruction procedures following bilateral mastectomies.
    • Summary judgment for employer of supervisor-employee who sent text-message with racial epithets to subordinate of color in demonstrating that internal investigation and corrective measures were sufficient to eradicate perception of a racially hostile work environment.
    • Mediation resulting in a $250,000 settlement in a professional liability action against an architect alleged to have breached the standard of care where over $1 million in damages were sought for the repair and reconstruction of a commercial property.
    • Mediation resulting in a $50,000 settlement in an action against an acute care facility and anesthesiologist involving alleged wrongful termination of a nurse anesthetist whose wage loss claim alone was $250,000.
    • Mediation resulting in a settlement under six figures in an alleged race discrimination and unlawful retaliation claim brought by a former assistant superintendent of a school district in which the claimed damages, including attorneys fees, exceeded $1 million.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Achieved in Racial Discrimination Suit

We achieved summary judgment on behalf of an art store chain in a racial discrimination suit over a caricature drawing of a Black woman and her infant son. She, her father and her father’s girlfriend, all visitors of HersheyPark, sued the owner of the kiosk for race discrimination, retaliation and interference under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that they were drawn with exaggerated and offensive features rooted in harmful racial stereotypes. The kiosk owner argued that while the caricatures might have been poorly drawn, they were not drawn in any manner intended to be offensive. Judge Bloom determined on summary judgment that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs on all three claims and dismissed the action.

Defense Verdict for School District

We obtained a defense verdict after a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved alleged race, gender and/or “intersectional” (race and gender) discrimination claims by two women against a Philadelphia area school district.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Employment Law

OSHA’s New Emergency Temporary Standard Suspended for Now

November 18, 2021

Key Dates: Effective Immediately and Until Further Notice Effective November 16, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration SUSPENDED its November 4, 2021, Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that requires private employers with 100 employees or more to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for employees or, alternatively, for those employees who are exempt, to require continued use of face coverings and the need to show weekly proof of a negative COVID test result.  OSHA’s ETS suspension arrived on the heels of several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the ETS which are now being litigated across the country and will be consolidated for appeal before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and are likely making their way, ultimately, to the United States Supreme Court.  For now, at least, it appears that all previously announced deadlines for implementation of the ETS by private employers are suspended. Stay tuned for more updates as this fluid and evolving situation develops.   Legal Updates for Employment Law - November 18, 2021, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Updates for Employment Law

COVID-19 Update: New OSHA Regulatory Standard Mandating COVID-19 Vaccinations for Large Employers

November 11, 2021

Key Compliance Dates: December 6, 2021; January 4, 2022            In June of 2021, OSHA filed its plan and reasoning for a new temporary regulatory standard for large employers (i.e., those with 100 employees or more) for the purpose of enforcing the President’s policy of mandating COVID-19 vaccinations. On November 5, 2021, that new standard became effective. In a nutshell, the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), found at 29 C.F.R. §1910, Subpart U, is broken down into five subparts, addressing: Vaccination, Testing and Face Coverings (1910.501), Healthcare (1910.502), Mini Respiratory Protection (1910.504), Severability (1910.506), and Incorporation by Reference (1910.509). The section anticipated to have a ubiquitous reach is the first, relating to Vaccination, Testing and Face Coverings. Indeed, this section requires all employers subject to the ETS have in place a policy that: mandates vaccinations by either Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson; exempts the mandate for approved reasons, including medical advice against it, sincerely held religious beliefs against it, or situations where it doesn’t apply at all—such as employees who do not come into contact with co-workers or customers, employees who work in an office space completely closed off from other office spaces, employees who work from home or employees who work outside; and requires that those employees exempt from the ETS wear face coverings at all times inside a building or in a car if on company business accompanying others. It further requires those employees to be tested for COVID-19 every seven days and turn those results into the employer, beginning on January 4, 2022. The ETS also requires employers to track and maintain data and documentation on each employee regarding their COVID vaccination status so that if OSHA must do an investigation based upon a complaint, that information is available for inspection. Importantly, this will require employers to collect and maintain (in a separate confidential medical file) each employee’s proof of vaccination and every COVID-19 test result for those employees who are exempt from the mandate. The ETS further protects “whistleblowers” and creates a standard for non-retaliation for anyone who makes a complaint to OSHA without regard to its merit. The ETS requires the employer to separate a non-compliant employee from the workplace unless and until the employee provides a current, negative COVID-19 test result. Significantly, there is no requirement for the employer to maintain a non-compliant employee on its payroll, nor is there a requirement for the employer to pay for the COVID tests that all exempt employees are required to take beginning in January 2022. While legal challenges to the ETS were fully expected and those lawsuits have already been filed, including one Court of Appeals staying the enforcement of the ETS until the challenge can be fully heard, employers should nonetheless put the necessary measures in place to comply with the ETS requirements now by creating all required policies, assuming that OSHA is successful in defeating the pending challenges. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in significant monetary penalties to employers if OSHA determines that an employer failed to have the required policy in place and also failed to enforce that policy with respect to all of its employees. For more information about how to implement and enforce this ETS in your organization, please contact RKODonnell@mdwcg.com, Chair, Employment Law Practice Group, Marshall Dennehey.   Legal Updates for Employment Law – November 11, 2021, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved

Firm Highlights

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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