Dan is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice in matters related to school leaders' liability, employment law, municipal liability and civil rights law. He has litigated cases before state and federal courts, as well as the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
Dan has an established legal career in both the public and private sector. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, he was the director of policy and legal affairs for a large public school district counseling the district in a variety of matters such as employment, contract, and general school law matters. He also previously was an attorney with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General where he counseled and litigated on behalf of Commonwealth agencies in matters regarding employment, constitutional claims, and contract matters. With his extensive legal background, Dan is adept at identifying and mitigating legal risks for clients.
Dan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Shippensburg University and a juris doctor from Widener University School of Law. He is admitted to practice in all Pennsylvania state courts as well as the United States District Court for the Middle District, Eastern District and Western District of Pennsylvania, and The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Outside of work, Dan is very active in his community coaching youth sports and moderating various activities through his local parish.
Published Works
•'Redefining Harm: Did SCOTUS Expand Title VII Protections in 'Muldrow v. City of St. Louis'?' The Legal Intelligencer, November 10, 2025
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law - Updates from the U.S. Department of Education
January 1, 2026
PA Supreme Court Provides Flexibility to Municipal and School Boards under the Sunshine Act with Its Ruling in Coleman v. Parkland School DistrictBackgroundA dispute arose regarding the 2021 amendments to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (Act 65). These amendments required agencies (including school boards and borough councils) to post meeting agendas at least 24 hours in advance of a public meeting and generally prohibited taking official action on items not listed on those pre-meeting agendas.In October 2021, the Parkland School Board added a vote to ratify a teachers' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to its agenda during a public meeting. However, the board only learned of the contract's ratification by the union shortly before the meeting began. A resident, Jarrett Coleman, challenged the vote, arguing it violated the Sunshine Act because the CBA was not on the 24-hour posted agenda and did not meet the specific 'emergency' or 'de minimis' exceptions listed in the Act.The Commonwealth Court initially ruled against the District, holding that agencies could only add items if they fell into three narrow categories: (1) emergencies, (2) matters arising 24 hours before the meeting that are de minimis, or (3) matters raised by a resident during the meeting that are de minimis. The District appealed, setting the stage for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.The DecisionThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the School District’s victory. Justice Donohue, writing for the majority, focused on a strict plain language interpretation of Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act.The 'Fourth Exception': The court held that the statute’s use of the disjunctive 'or' in Section 712.1(a)-which references subsections (b), (c), (d), or (e)-indicates that there are four independent exceptions to the 24-hour notice rule.The Court determined that Section 712.1(e), often called the 'Majority Vote Clause,' is a standalone exception. It allows an agency to add any matter of business to the agenda during a meeting, provided they follow specific procedural steps.The “spirit of the law” argument was rejected by the majority, explaining that the Commonwealth Court had essentially 'redrafted' the statute. The Supreme Court emphasized that if the text is unambiguous, the court cannot ignore the literal interpretation of the law to pursue its perceived intent.TakeawaysFor solicitors and legal counsel representing Pennsylvania municipal bodies and school districts, the Coleman ruling provides much-needed flexibility, but requires strict procedural adherence.The Coleman decision removes the “de minimis” requirement to Majority Votes under the Sunshine Act. Given that agencies have a majority vote to create a last-minute addition to an agenda, they no longer need to prove that it is an 'emergency' or 'minor' (de minimis).However, local agencies must follow the Four-Step Procedural Mandate to lawfully add an item under the 'Majority Vote' exception. Practitioners must ensure their clients: 1. Announce the reasons for the change publicly before the vote.2. Conduct a separate majority vote to amend the agenda before voting on the substance of the item.3. Post the amended agenda online and at the principal office by the next business day.4. Record the reasons and the vote clearly in the meeting minutes.Solicitors or attorneys representing local agency clients would be wise to monitor legislation by the General Assembly in response to the Coleman decision. The Assembly may respond with further clarification to the Act in the event of potential “absurd” results cautioned by some justices and whether the “broad flexibility” offered by the Coleman decision is, in fact, what the legislature intended. Legal Update for Special Education Law - January 2026 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 2026 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.
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law - Updates from the Pennsylvania Department of Education
December 1, 2025
Pennsylvania Expands School Notification Requirements for Weapons IncidentsLast month, Governor Shapiro signed Act No. 2025-44, which amends Pennsylvania’s School Code. Specifically, the new law requires Pennsylvania schools to notify parents and educators within 24 hours when a student is found in possession of a weapon on school property, school transportation or at a school-sponsored activity. The Bill aims to increase transparency and school safety by requiring schools to use communications methods “likely to reach” (e.g., phone, email, SMS) parents and staff impacted by a student’s possession of a weapon. In instances where the student possesses a weapon in a school building, the District should notify only parents and staff directly involved. However, the law requires broader dissemination of a student’s weapon possession when the student possesses the weapon on a multi-building campus. In such a case, all staff and parents with students in the other on-campus buildings must be notified. The law further states that notices of student weapon possessions discovered at “school-sponsored activities” should be directed to “the appropriate population” impacted by the weapon possession. Importantly, Districts are not required to include personally identifiable information in their notices to parents and staff. Further, Districts must provide more detailed information to families and staff with “legitimate educational interests” in the student who possessed the weapon. Districts must continue to report weapon possession incidents to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). In addition, Districts must also continue to report weapon possessions that constitute violations of 24 P.S. 1317.2 (Possession of weapons prohibited), 18 Pa.C.S. 912 (Possession of weapon on school property), or any other weapon identified by District policy or local ordinance. As with any new legislation, there is language in Act 44 that may prove ambiguous, such as what constitutes notification “likely to reach” staff and parents. However, Pennsylvania school districts should discuss updates to their policies with their solicitors to ensure compliance with Act 44’s new requirements, review FERPA requirements with staff to ensure personally identifiable information is not disclosed to unintended parties, and review and refine notification workflows.
