Rachel is a member of the Professional Liability Department, where she focuses her practice in the areas of employment law, civil rights, and education. As to the latter, Rachel handles special education matters arising under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act at both the administrative and federal district court levels. She has also litigated Title IX claims and presented to local school districts on their Title IX obligations.
In 2021, Rachel graduated magna cum laude from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and was inducted to the Order of the Coif legal honor society. She was a recipient of the Dorothy Day Award, which recognizes students who have completed fifty hours or more of pro bono service during their time in law school.
As a law student, Rachel was involved in numerous extracurricular activities. She was a Staff Writer and Managing Editor of Student Works for the Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, as well as a member of Villanova’s National Trial Team. She also worked as a research assistant in the areas of both sports law and tax law, conducting research into such varied topics as the impact of name/image/likeness legislation on college athletics, the sports industry’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the relationship between the income tax system and executive compensation.
In addition, Rachel held multiple internships and volunteer positions during her time at Villanova, working as a summer clerk in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a Legal Services Coordinator for Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, and a Student Attorney for the Villanova University Clinic for Law & Entrepreneurship.
After graduating, Rachel was a law clerk for The Honorable Terrence R. Nealon in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, and later an Associate Attorney with a Brooklyn-based law firm focusing on performing arts immigration.
Rachel is very active in her local community and the legal community. She serves on the Board of Directors of The Luzerne Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Further, she is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association's 2025-2026 Bar Leadership Institute class.
Published Works
•'Let the Sunshine In: Exploring the Impact of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act on School Board Decision-Making,' COUNTERPOINT Pennsylvania Defense Institute Publication, September 2024
•'Making the Extraordinary Ordinary: Examining the Impact of Shifting Immigration Policies on Professional Athletics in the United States,' (Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, Volume XXVIII, Issue 1)
•“Advice to the Sinners and Denial by the Saints: The New Orleans Saints’ Uncertain Role in the Roman Catholic Church’s Child Abuse Scandal,” The Jeffrey S. Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law (blog), Spring 2020
•“The National Football League’s Blind Side: Why the League’s Efforts to End Violence Against Women Should Be Aimed at Personnel as Well as Players,” The Jeffrey S. Moorad Center for the Study of Sports Law (blog), Fall 2019
Results
Dismissal Affirmed by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
We successfully convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County’s grant of our preliminary objections and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus. In its complaint in mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff argued that our client’s letter denying its plan and application for the development of solar panels was insufficient under the Municipalities Planning Code, thus entitling it to a deemed approval of its plan. We had successfully filed preliminary objections to the complaint on the grounds that the Township’s letter, which identified the plan’s defects with specific reference to provisions of the Municipal Planning Code that had not been satisfied, was sufficient under Section 508 of the Municipal Planning Code. This section requires that, when a municipality denies an application for approval of a development plan, “the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or ordinance relied upon.” 53 P.S. Section 10508(2). The plaintiff appealed the decision, and we attended oral argument before the Commonwealth Court, following which the court affirmed the decision of the lower court on the same grounds.
Summary Judgment Obtained in Complicated Case Brought Against Two Pennsylvania School Districts
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two school districts in a matter brought by various plaintiffs against the Career and Technology Center of Lackawanna County (CTC) and four of its sending school districts. The plaintiffs had asserted claims under Title IX, the 14th Amendment, and Section 8542(b)(9) of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act based on their sexual abuse by an automotive technology instructor at CTC. While permitting some claims to proceed against CTC, the court dismissed all claims against the sending school districts on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any individual at any of the defendant-school districts had actual knowledge of the automotive technology instructor’s conduct, and the instructor was not an employee, independent contractor or ostensible agent of any school district by virtue of his employment by CTC.
Thought Leadership
Legal Updates for Special Education Law
Legal Update for Special Education Law - Updates from the U.S. Department of Education
November 1, 2025
Education Department Layoffs Hit Offices that Oversee Special Education and Civil Rights EnforcementOn October 17, 2025, 466 Education Department staffers were laid off amidst an ongoing federal government shutdown. As a result, the Department’s workforce was reduced by nearly a fifth. Of special note, nearly all workers were discharged from the office that implements the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with only a small number of top officials remaining. Additionally, many employees of the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination at U.S. schools and universities, have been fired; however, the precise number of these employees is unknown. Rachel Gittleman, the president of AFGE Local 252, which represents over 2,700 Education Department workers, issued a statement expressing her concern that the layoffs would “double down on the harm to K-12 students, students with disabilities, first generation college students, low-income students, teachers and local education boards.” For more information, see: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/education-department-layoffs-hit-offices-that-oversee-special-education-and-civil-rights-enforcement. Legal Update for Special Education Law - November 2025 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 2025 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 - Case Law Update
April 1, 2025
Court Allows Supplementation of Record in Special Education Appeal, Weighing Child Find Obligations.Q.H. by and through Regan H. v. Scranton School Dist., 2025 WL 419529 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2025)This case centers on whether the school district failed in its Child Find duty by delaying the student’s special education evaluation despite repeated parental requests. While the hearing officer found no violation, citing the student’s absenteeism, the court has allowed additional testimony from the school psychologist to assess whether earlier identification was warranted. This testimony is crucial in determining whether the student was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).The parent claimed that, despite requesting her daughter be evaluated for special education needs on multiple occasions since her kindergarten year, she was not evaluated until her second grade year, when she was deemed eligible for special education services. After two days of testimony in June 2024, the hearing officer determined that the school district did not violate its Child Find obligation because the student’s frequent absenteeism would have rendered it impossible to identify her educational needs any earlier than it did. Notably, the hearing officer did not hear testimony from the school psychologist who had evaluated the student, instead basing the determination on the student’s evaluation report and testimony from her parent and second-grade teacher.The court granted the parent ‘s request to supplement the administrative record with testimony from the school psychologist regarding whether her evaluation of the student suggested that the student should have been identified as having special education needs sooner. In so holding, the court recognized its obligation to give due weight to the factual findings of the Office of Dispute Resolution. Nevertheless, it determined that relevant, non-cumulative evidence should be considered by district courts where necessary to determine if a child has been provided with a FAPE. Legal Update for Special Education Law - April 2025 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 2025 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.
