Matthew serves as Co-Chair of the Public Entity and Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group. His practice is concentrated in the defense of public entities in the areas of employment law and municipal liability. As well, he defends municipal and county governments, police departments, police officers and school boards in cases relating to civil rights, sexual harassment, age discrimination, race, ethnic, gender and handicap discrimination, and land use issues. Matthew also has vast experience in cases involving retaliation and whistle blowing under state law, and his practice involves both federal and state courts.
Further, Matthew has considerable experience in representing public entities and private entities in matters involving the Fair Housing Act and American with Disabilities Act in federal and state courts and agencies as well as in the Division on Civil Rights and EEOC. He has represented various entities including Homeowners’ Associations in reasonable accommodation and disability discrimination cases and has recently obtained a summary judgment motion on behalf of a HOA involving the issue of emotional support animals.
Clients rely on Matthew to handle their most complex and high-exposure litigation. He has successfully settled numerous cases well below the initial demand, including a high-profile case involving allegations of bullying in a school district that received national attention. He understands the complexity of these cases and how they affect not only the clients, but the carriers as well, from both a litigation and reputational perspective.
Matthew was recently appointed to the District IV Ethics Committee by the New Jersey Supreme Court and is serving a four-year term from September 1, 2024 to August 31, 2028.
Matthew received his B.A. in Political Science from The Pennsylvania State University. He earned his juris doctor from Seton Hall School of Law in 1998. Following law school, Matthew served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable George L. Seltzer in Atlantic City.
Matthew joined Marshall Dennehey in 2003, bringing with him considerable employment law experience.
Published Works
•“Just Because You Expunge a Record Does Not Mean Internal Affairs Records Are Not Subject to an Open Public Records Act Request,” Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024
•“Police Officers Have a Ministerial Duty to Render Assistance to an Intoxicated Person Involved in a Motor Vehicle Accident and Are Not Immune Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,” Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 2, June 2020
•Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights, regular contributor, 2018-present
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in Disability Discrimination Case
We successfully obtained summary judgment for a county in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. After being sent for a fitness-for-duty examination, a medical professional determined that the plaintiff was not fit for duty, leading to his termination. The court ruled in favor of the county, granting summary judgment on all claims and dismissing the case with prejudice.
Favorable Decision Obtained from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
We received a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a First Amendment case. The circuit court affirmed the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction in which the plaintiff claimed that federal and local officials violated her First Amendment rights through censorship and retaliation after she posted comments on Facebook. In a published decision, the Third Circuit agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing since she could not demonstrate a substantial risk of future harm specific to our client, the former chief of police of North Hanover, NJ, as well as the other co-defendants.
Thought Leadership
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.
Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights
School Districts Can Be Vicariously Liable When Students Are Sexually Abused by Their Employees
March 16, 2026
In a precedential, consolidated opinion decided on March 11, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education and Simpkins v. South Orange-Maplewood School District that the Child Victims Act “fundamentally altered” claims against school districts under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. In making this finding, the Supreme Court held that school districts are not barred from vicarious liability for claims for sexual abuse that occurred outside the scope of employment.The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s finding that school districts were immune from liability pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, even after the 2019 amendment to the Child Victims Act. The majority’s opinion held that the legislature eliminated the immunities previously afforded to school districts, and sexual misconduct claims that occur even outside the scope of employment are no longer immunized by the Tort Claims Act.The Court further set forth a standard for lower courts to utilize when determining if a school district is vicariously liable for the sexual misconduct of its employees. The judges should consider whether the school implemented and enforced policies to prevent the sexual abuse of students, the circumstances of the abuse, whether the abuse took place on school property or at school-related events, whether it took place during school hours, and whether it was reported to school officials. The Court specifically stated that a school district could be liable (tacitly approved the abuse) if a teacher abused a student inside of the classroom for weeks and other school officials should have been aware of the abuse. All of these factors will most likely prevent a motion to dismiss from being filed at the beginning of cases, and the determination of vicarious liability will be fact-sensitive.Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding these cases and others pertaining to alleged sexual abuse of students by teachers.
