Practice Areas & Industries: Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

The employment law attorneys of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin concentrate their practice on the representation of employers in all areas of employment-related litigation and counseling. Annually, our attorneys handle hundreds of employment matters for clients, including insurers and their insureds, self-insured Fortune 1000 companies, joint insurance funds, state governments and local municipalities. Litigation matters are handled in each of the jurisdictions in which we practice and cover the full range of employment-related claims under the relevant federal and state statutes and local ordinances. They include but are not limited to:

  • Age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
  • Sex, race, national origin and religion discrimination claims under Title VII
  • Disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Section 1981 and Section 1983 civil rights claims
  • Common law wrongful discharge claims
  • Employment-related defamation claims
  • Claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act
  • Claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state statutes

In addition to handling employment law litigation matters, we provide our clients with a full range of advisory services in order to help them avoid litigation. These services include but are not limited to:

  • Staff training on employment-related topics at client’s location
  • Review and/or draft employment handbooks
  • Reviews of client employment policies/procedures
  • Advise clients on their specific, breaking employment issues, as they arise

A significant strength of our firm is the regional representation we provide insurers and self-insureds. We have 19 offices and can handle employment matters throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Ohio and Florida. The attorneys in the Employment Law Practice Group have the requisite local knowledge and experience to provide highly-skilled and effective representation to our clients who face employment-related litigation or have employment-related issues in any of those jurisdictions.

We always handle every case with a practical, result-oriented approach which balances strong representation of our clients with realistic cost containment. Our fees are very competitive, and we work with our clients to develop innovative alternative approaches to file handling and billing which oftentimes result in significant savings to our clients.


 
Group Presentations
  Pennsylvania MGMA State Conference, Desmond Hotel, One Liberty Boulevard , Malvern, PA, May 15, 2014
 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Courts Differ on Healthcare Reform
Mark L. Mattioli, July 26, 2014
Yesterday, two separate courts of appeals rendered contrary decisions on whether the subsidy provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) applies in states that have opted not to run their own insurance exchanges. Cur­rently, only 14 states have established their own exchanges, while 36 states,...

Plaintiff’s Victory in Title VII Retaliation Cases Made More Difficult: The Expansion of “But-For” Causation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Thomas J. Szymanski, May 30, 2014
A plaintiff attempting to sustain a claim for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), must demonstrate that he or she: (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer took adverse employment action against the plaintiff, and (3) there was a causal connection...

Patiently Waiting for the Florida Supreme Court to Decide Whether Pregnant Women Are Protected Under the Florida Civil Rights Act
Jeannie A. Liebegott, March 14, 2014
There is currently a conflict within the Florida circuits on the issue of whether the Florida Civil Rights Act (§§ 760.01-010, Florida Statutes) protects against workplace discrimination based on pregnancy. This issue was heard by the Florida Supreme Court in late May 2013, in the case of...

Ex Parte Communication Prohibited Between Employer’s Attorney and Claimant’s Physician
Francis X. Wickersham, January 17, 2014
A new Commonwealth Court decision in Pennsylvania State University v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Sox); 454 C.D. 2013, 455 C.D. 2013; filed December 19, 2013, has changed the law regarding communications between an employer and a panel physician when taking depositions. No longer is...

PA Supreme Court Holds That Employer’s Burden Of Proof When Seeking Modification Of Benefits Based On Labor Market Survey Requires Showing Existence Of Open Jobs Claimant Is Capable Of Filling, Not Simply The Existence Of Jobs That Already Filled
Francis X. Wickersham, January 03, 2014
In this case, the claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left shoulder. The claimant received physical therapy, and three surgeries were performed on the shoulder. The employer later filed a modification petition based on the results of two labor market surveys.

Ramifications for Employer’s When There Are “Guns At Work”
Rocco J. Carbone, December 19, 2013
In Florida and across the country, impassioned discussions about gun rights are taking place. In the wake of high-profile cases like the George Zimmerman trial and the events at the Naval Yard shooting in Washington, D.C., conceal and carry permits have become a hot topic of discussion. Much of the...

Under What Circumstances Can a Respondent Recover a Faultless Overpayment of Workers’ Compensation Benefits from a Petitioner?
Dario J. Badalamenti, October 30, 2013
On October 18, 2000, the petitioner received an award of total disability from his employer, entitling him to permanent total disability (PTD) benefits at a rate of $480 per week for 450 weeks. On April 1, 2002, the petitioner qualified for and began receiving ordinary disability pension benefits,...

Accidents Occurring on the Respondent’s Premises During the Petitioner’s Personal Time are Not Compensable.
Dario J. Badalamenti, October 21, 2013
The petitioner was employed as a part-time personal trainer for the respondent, a health club and athletic facility. The petitioner trained clients from 6:00 to 7:00 a.m., 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. On September 22, 2010, at 11:15 a.m., the petitioner tripped, fell and broke her...

Employers’ Right to Direct Claimants to Obtain Prescribed Medications from the Employer’s Preferred Pharmacy Affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court.
Paul V. Tatlow, October 21, 2013
The Delaware Supreme Court has issued its ruling in this case, agreeing with the Superior Court and the Industrial Accident Board, that under the Compensation Act, employers have the right to direct claimants to obtain their prescribed medications from the preferred pharmacy chosen by the employer.

The Supreme Court Holds that an Employee is a “Supervisor” for Purposes of Vicarious Liability under Title VII Only When the Employer has Empowered the Employee to Take Tangible Employment Actions against the Alleged Victim.
Lee C. Durivage, October 21, 2013
The Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and held that an employee is a supervisor for purposes of establishing vicarious liability in a Title VII hostile work environment case only when “the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim, i.e.,...

The United States Supreme Court Holds that a Mixed-Motive Jury Instruction in a Title VII Retaliation Case is Improper.
Lee C. Durivage, October 21, 2013
The United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under Title VII must demonstrate “that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action” and further noted that a “mixed-motive” jury instruction in a Title...

Delaware Expands Its Employment Anti-Discrimination Laws To Include Gender Identity
Shannon L. Brainard, August 28, 2013
On June 19, 2013, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 97, which amends the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, 19 Del. C. §§ 710 et seq. (DDEA), to include gender identity as a class protected from discrimination by employers. Gender identity is now...