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
Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights
Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA
June 17, 2026
In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested.In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are.Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted.The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.” Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA.
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.
