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.
Honors & Awards
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005)
•Harrisburg Style Magazine, December, 2015, 'Select Lawyers,' (peer rated) in Education and Employment Discrimination Law
Classes/Seminars Taught
•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
Published Works
•'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
Media Commentary
•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.
Results
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
Legal Updates for Employment Law
OSHA’s New Emergency Temporary Standard Suspended for Now
November 18, 2021
Key Dates: Effective Immediately and Until Further NoticeEffective 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected]. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved
AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him
or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.
Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.
