Schnee Legal Services, LLC

What is a cease and desist letter?

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:36:03 GMT

What Is a Cease and Desist Letter, and What Should You Do If You Receive One?

Published by J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq., Schnee Legal Services, LLC, Lititz, Pennsylvania

You open your mail or email, and there it is: a letter from an attorney, addressed to you, with the words "cease and desist" at the top. Your first reaction may be alarm. Your second may be confusion. Before you do anything else, take a breath. A cease and desist letter is not a lawsuit. It is not a court order. It does not, by itself, obligate you to do anything. What it is, however, is a serious communication that deserves a serious and careful response. This post explains what a cease and desist letter is, what it typically demands, and how you should approach it if one lands in your hands.

What Is a Cease and Desist Letter?

A cease and desist letter is a written demand, typically sent by an attorney on behalf of a client, asking the recipient to stop a particular activity and to refrain from engaging in that activity in the future. It is a private communication, not a legal filing. No court is involved at the stage the letter is sent, and receiving one does not mean you have been sued or that legal proceedings have been initiated against you.

That said, a cease and desist letter is almost always a signal that the sender is prepared to escalate to litigation if the recipient does not comply. Think of it as a formal warning shot: an opportunity for the dispute to be resolved without the expense and disruption of a lawsuit, but also a clear statement that the sender considers the matter serious enough to involve an attorney.

What Do Cease and Desist Letters Typically Demand?

The specific demands in a cease and desist letter depend entirely on the nature of the underlying dispute. Common categories include:

• Defamation or false statements: The sender alleges that the recipient has made false and damaging statements about them, whether in print, online, on social media, or elsewhere, and demands that the statements be retracted and that no further statements of the same nature be made.

• Intellectual property disputes: The sender alleges that the recipient is infringing a trademark, copyright, or patent, and demands that the infringing activity stop immediately.

• Harassment or unwanted contact: The sender alleges that the recipient has been harassing them or making unwanted contact, and demands that all communication cease.

• Breach of a contract or non-compete agreement: The sender alleges that the recipient is violating the terms of a contract, often a non-disclosure agreement or a non-compete clause, and demands compliance.

• Business disputes: The sender alleges unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, or tortious interference with business relationships, and demands that the conduct stop.

In nearly every case, the letter will include a deadline by which the sender expects a response or compliance, along with a statement of the legal consequences that will follow if the demands are not met.

What a Cease and Desist Letter Is NOT

Understanding what a cease and desist letter is not is just as important as understanding what it is.

It is not a court order. You are not legally required to comply with it simply because it was written on attorney letterhead. A court order, such as an injunction, is issued by a judge and carries the force of law. A cease and desist letter does not.

It is not a lawsuit. Receiving one does not mean you have been named as a defendant in any pending legal action. It means that someone is considering their options and wants you to know it.

It is not necessarily based on valid legal claims. Cease and desist letters are sometimes sent as intimidation tactics, designed to pressure recipients into compliance regardless of whether the underlying legal theories would actually survive scrutiny in court. In Pennsylvania, the new Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, also known as Act 72 of 2024, provides important protections for people who receive legally questionable demands aimed at silencing protected speech. More on that in a separate post.

What Should You Do If You Receive a Cease and Desist Letter?

The most important thing you can do when you receive a cease and desist letter is to consult with an attorney before you respond. Resist the temptation to fire off a response on your own, whether that response is compliance, defiance, or something in between. What you say in reply, and how you say it, can have significant legal consequences.

Do Not Ignore It

A cease and desist letter that goes unanswered almost always leads to escalation. Even if you believe the demands are completely without merit, ignoring the letter signals to the sender that litigation may be the only way to get your attention. It also eliminates any chance of early resolution on favorable terms.

Do Not Immediately Comply Without Understanding What You Are Agreeing To

If the letter demands that you sign an attached acknowledgment or agreement, read it carefully before doing anything. Some cease and desist letters are accompanied by proposed agreements that, if signed, could bind you to obligations far beyond simply stopping the activity at issue. An attorney can review any proposed agreement before you put your name on it.

Preserve Relevant Documents and Communications

Once you receive a cease and desist letter, you should preserve all documents, communications, and records that may be relevant to the dispute. This includes emails, text messages, social media posts, contracts, and any other materials that relate to the conduct at issue. Destroying or deleting relevant materials after receiving a cease and desist letter can create serious legal problems, including sanctions in subsequent litigation.

Assess the Merits of the Claims

Not all cease and desist letters are created equal. Some are based on strong legal theories and credible facts. Others are overreaching, legally questionable, or outright baseless. An experienced attorney can help you assess the actual legal strength of the claims being asserted, which is essential to determining how to respond.

Craft a Considered Response

A well-crafted response to a cease and desist letter can accomplish several things at once: it can set the record straight on disputed facts, put the sender on notice of your defenses, demonstrate that you are taking the matter seriously without admitting any wrongdoing, and open the door to a negotiated resolution. It can also preserve important legal defenses that might otherwise be waived if the matter proceeds to litigation.

When the Letter Might Be a SLAPP

If you received a cease and desist letter in connection with something you said or wrote about a matter of public concern, about a government body, about a public official, or about issues being considered in a public proceeding, Pennsylvania's new anti-SLAPP law may be highly relevant to your situation. The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Act 72 of 2024, provides immunity from civil liability for certain protected public expression and includes a fee-shifting provision that can require the party bringing a baseless claim to pay your attorney's fees.

Schnee Legal Services has experience with exactly these kinds of situations. If you are facing a cease and desist letter that feels more like an attempt to silence you than a legitimate legal claim, that is worth a serious conversation.

The Bottom Line

A cease and desist letter is a serious document that deserves a serious response, but it is not an emergency that requires blind compliance or immediate panic. The right response depends entirely on the specific facts and legal theories at issue, and that is exactly the kind of analysis an experienced attorney is equipped to provide.

If you have received a cease and desist letter and are not sure what to do next, Schnee Legal Services, LLC is here to help. We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania in defamation disputes, business conflicts, and free speech matters. Reach out through schneelegal.com.

J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq. is the principal of Schnee Legal Services, LLC, a Pennsylvania virtual law firm. He can be reached at chadwick@schneelegal.com

https://youtu.be/0vfsv-siBa8

The Importance Of Transparency In Municipal Law

Thu, 01 Jan 2026 16:44:27 GMT

The Importance of Transparency in Municipal Law

At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we are committed to fostering trust and accountability in municipal governance. As a seasoned municipal solicitor, I have seen firsthand how Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law and Sunshine Act empower communities by ensuring access to public records and open meetings. Transparency is not just a legal requirement—it’s a cornerstone of effective public service.

Navigating the Right-to-Know Law

The Right-to-Know Law allows citizens to request public records, promoting accountability in local government. However, balancing transparency with legal protections, such as privacy or ongoing investigations, requires careful expertise. At Schnee Legal Services, we guide municipalities to comply with these laws efficiently, ensuring requests are handled promptly and accurately. For example, in a recent case, we assisted a township in streamlining its records process, reducing response times while adhering to statutory exemptions.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

One common misunderstanding is that legal fees for handling complex requests reflect a lack of transparency. In reality, these fees often cover necessary reviews to protect sensitive information, such as employee records or litigation details. Our firm prioritizes cost-effective solutions, ensuring municipalities meet transparency obligations without undue burden.

Our Commitment to You

Whether you’re a municipal official or a citizen seeking clarity, Schnee Legal Services, LLC, is here to bridge the gap. We believe informed communities are stronger communities. Stay tuned for more insights on how we’re helping Pennsylvania municipalities thrive.

Have questions about municipal law or public records? Contact us at chadwick@schneelegal.com or follow @ChadwickSchnee on X for updates.

PA's Anti-SLAPP Shield: How We Won $6K+ for a Client's Free Speech Rights

Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:24:34 GMT

PA's Anti-SLAPP Shield: How We Won $6K+ for a Client's Free Speech Rights

In an era where speaking out on matters of public concern can sometimes lead to costly legal battles, Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (Act 72 of 2024) stands as a powerful shield for those exercising their constitutional rights. Signed into law on July 17, 2024, with immediate effect, this statute addresses the growing issue of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) designed to silence critics through the burden of litigation. At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we recently leveraged this Act to secure a significant victory for a clientin Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, including an award of over $6,000 in attorney fees, court costs, and litigation expenses. This blog explores the Act’s purpose, its key provisions, and how our firm successfully applied it to protect our client’s right to free speech.

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act: A Response to SLAPP Suits

The Pennsylvania General Assembly recognized a troubling trend: a rise in lawsuits aimed at chilling valid public expression. These SLAPP suits exploit the judicial process to intimidate individuals and organizations into silence, often targeting those who speak out on public issues or participate in government proceedings. To counter this, Act 72 of 2024, codified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8340.11 et seq., establishes robust protections for “protected public expression.” The Act’s stated goals include encouraging continued participation in matters of public significance and preventing the abuse of judicial processes to suppress free speech (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.12).

What Constitutes “Protected Public Expression”?

The Act defines “protected public expression” broadly to encompass:

Communication in legislative, executive, judicial, or administrative proceedings;
Communication on issues under consideration or review in such proceedings; or
The exercise of rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, or association on matters of public concern, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Sections 7 and 20 of Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.13).

This broad construction ensures that individuals engaging in these activities are safeguarded from retaliatory litigation.

Key Mechanisms of the Act

The Act provides a clear framework for dismissing meritless claims early in the litigation process. Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.15, individuals are immune from civil liability if the opposing party fails to:

Establish a prima facie case for each essential element of their cause of action; or
State a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

Additionally, immunity applies if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the defending party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.15(2)). To enforce this immunity, the Act allows for a special pretrial motion to be filed within 60 days of service of a pleading asserting a cause of action based on protected public expression (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.16). Critically, if immunity is granted, the court is mandated to award attorney fees, court costs, and litigation expenses to the immune party (42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.18(a)(1)).

A Real-World Victory

At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we recently applied the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act to protect a client in a case before the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Our client initiated a Sunshine Act (65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701 et seq.) action against an agency that challenged its compliance with open meeting laws. In response, the Defendants filed a counterclaim on March 3, 2025, seeking judgment and attorney fees, a move that appeared designed to deter her from pursuing her legal rights.

Recognizing that the Sunshine Act challenge constituted “protected public expression” under the Act—specifically as communication in a judicial proceeding and an exercise of her right to petition on a matter of public concern—we promptly filed a special pretrial motion for judgment on the counterclaim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.16. Our motion argued that the Defendants failed to establish a prima facie case, did not state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed, entitling our client to judgment as a matter of law.

The Outcome

The court agreed, granting our motion and dismissing the Defendants’ counterclaim based on our client's immunity under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.15. Furthermore, pursuant to the Act’s mandatory provision, the court ordered the Defendants to pay over $6,000 in attorney fees, court costs, and litigation expenses incurred by our client in defending against the counterclaim. This award included costs related to responding to the counterclaim, researching and filing the motion, preparing for oral argument, and associated travel expenses.

This victory underscores the Act’s power to protect individuals from retaliatory lawsuits and to shift the financial burden onto those who attempt to abuse the judicial process. It also serves as a testament to Schnee Legal Services’ commitment to defending our clients’ constitutional rights with strategic and effective legal advocacy.

Why This Matters

The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act is more than a legal tool—it’s a lifeline for individuals and organizations who might otherwise be silenced by the threat of costly litigation. Whether you’re challenging local government transparency, speaking out on public policy, or petitioning for change, this Act ensures that your voice can be heard without fear of financial ruin. The mandatory award of attorney fees and costs levels the playing field, deterring bad-faith actors from weaponizing lawsuits to suppress dissent.

For our client, this law meant the difference between facing a potentially ruinous counterclaim and emerging victorious with her legal costs covered. Her case demonstrates that the Act is not just theoretical—it delivers real, tangible results for those who stand up for their rights.

Practical Advice: How to Protect Your Rights Under the Act

If you believe you’re facing a lawsuit designed to silence your public expression, consider the following steps:

Document Everything : Keep detailed records of your communications, especially those related to government proceedings or public issues. These records can help establish that your actions fall under “protected public expression.”
Act Quickly : The Act requires a special pretrial motion to be filed within 60 days of receiving a pleading asserting a cause of action. Missing this deadline could limit your ability to invoke the Act’s protections.
Consult Experienced Counsel : An attorney familiar with the Act can assess whether your case qualifies for immunity and guide you through the process of filing a special motion. Timing and precision are critical.
Understand Your Rights : The Act covers a wide range of activities, from speaking at a public hearing to filing a lawsuit like a Sunshine Act challenge. Knowing what qualifies as protected expression can empower you to act confidently.

Conclusion

Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act is a landmark statute that safeguards free speech and public participation from the threat of retaliatory lawsuits. At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we are proud to have secured a significant victory under this Act for our client, demonstrating its effectiveness in real-world litigation. The court’s dismissal of the counterclaim and award of over $6,000 in fees and costs sends a clear message: Pennsylvania will not tolerate attempts to silence those who speak out.

If you’re facing a legal challenge for exercising your right to free speech or need guidance on navigating Pennsylvania’s open government laws, Schnee Legal Services, LLC is here to help. Contact us at (717) 400-5955 or visit schneelegal.com to schedule a consultation. Your voice matters, and we’re here to protect it.

Supreme Court Rejects "Background Circumstances" Rule in Title VII Cases: What It Means for You

Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:22:07 GMT

Supreme Court Rejects "Background Circumstances" Rule in Title VII Cases: What It Means for You

In a groundbreaking decision this past June, the Supreme Court delivered a powerful message about fairness in the workplace: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects all individuals from employment discrimination—period. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025), the Court struck down a rule that had unfairly stacked the deck against certain employees seeking justice. This ruling is a game-changer for anyone who believes they’ve been discriminated against at work, and at Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we’re here to help you understand what it means and how we can fight for your rights.

The Case: A Fight for Equal Treatment

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services, faced a double blow. She applied for a promotion in 2019, only to see it go to a lesbian colleague. Days later, she was demoted from her role as a program administrator, with a gay man stepping into her former position—and a significant pay cut following close behind. Ames fought back, filing a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

The lower courts dismissed her case, relying on a Sixth Circuit rule known as the “background circumstances” test. This rule demanded that plaintiffs like Ames—members of so-called “majority groups”—provide extra evidence to prove discrimination, beyond what others had to show. Specifically, she needed to demonstrate that her employer was the “unusual” type that discriminates against the majority, a hurdle not imposed on minority-group plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Leveling the Playing Field

The Supreme Court said enough is enough. In a unanimous opinion, the justices rejected the “background circumstances” rule, declaring it incompatible with Title VII’s clear language. The statute prohibits employers from discriminating against “any individual” based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin—without carving out exceptions or higher burdens for anyone. As the Court put it, “Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

This decision dismantles a judicial roadblock that had persisted in several circuits, including our own Sixth Circuit, and reaffirms that the same rules apply to everyone under Title VII. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch in a concurrence, even took aim at the broader McDonnell Douglas framework—a legal test often used in discrimination cases—hinting that it, too, might be ripe for reevaluation due to its complexity and lack of statutory grounding.

What This Means for You

This ruling is a victory for fairness, and it could open the door for countless employees who’ve been unfairly treated at work. Here’s the takeaway: if you’ve been denied a promotion, demoted, fired, or otherwise mistreated because of your race, sex, religion, or any other protected trait, you don’t need to jump through extra hoops just because you’re part of a “majority” group. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Title VII’s protections are universal.

Have you been passed over for a job or promotion in favor of someone else, and suspect your race, sex, or orientation played a role?
Were you disciplined or let go under circumstances that don’t add up, leaving you wondering if discrimination was the real reason?
Are you unsure whether your situation qualifies as discrimination under the law?

If any of these sound familiar, this decision strengthens your ability to hold your employer accountable. You deserve a workplace free from bias, and the law is on your side-now more than ever.

Why Schnee Legal Services, LLC?

At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we’re not just lawyers—we’re advocates for justice. With years of experience navigating the intricacies of employment law, I’ve seen firsthand how discrimination can upend lives and livelihoods. Our firm specializes in Title VII cases, and we’re well-versed in the latest legal developments, like the Ames decision, that can make or break your claim.

We know these cases can feel daunting. The legal system is complex, and employers often have deep pockets and skilled counsel. That’s where we come in. Led by me, J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq., our team offers:

Personalized attention : We listen to your story and tailor our approach to your unique situation.
Aggressive representation : We fight tirelessly to protect your rights and secure the compensation or relief you deserve.
Deep expertise : From filing claims with the EEOC to litigating in federal court, we’ve got the know-how to guide you every step of the way.

Contact Us Today

Don’t let discrimination go unchecked. Whether you’re a manager, an entry-level worker, or anywhere in between, the Ames decision underscores that you have rights worth defending. At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we are happy to review your case and discuss your options. Call us at (717) 400-5955 or email me directly at chadwick@schneelegal.com to get started. Time is critical in employment cases, with strict deadlines for filing claims, so don’t wait. Let’s talk about how we can help you seek justice and reclaim what’s rightfully yours.

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services is a step toward a more equitable workplace for all. It’s a reminder that discrimination doesn’t discriminate-and neither should the law. At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we’re committed to turning that principle into action for our clients. If you’re ready to stand up to workplace wrongs, we’re ready to stand with you. Reach out today-your first step toward justice is just a call or click away.

Breaking Down the Commonwealth Court’s Ruling on RTK Law: A Closer Look at Shepherd v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor

Thu, 15 May 2025 16:33:33 GMT

Breaking Down the Commonwealth Court’s Ruling on RTK Law: A Closer Look at Shepherd v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor

Have you ever wondered how far Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTK Law) stretches when it comes to digging into government records? The Commonwealth Court’s recent decision in Todd Shepherd and Broad and Liberty, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor (Case No. 900 C.D. 2024, decided June 5, 2025) pulls back the curtain on that very question. Here at Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we’re all about keeping you in the loop on the legal showdowns that define government transparency. In this post, I’ll unpack the court’s ruling—what went down, why it’s a big deal, and what it means for anyone keeping tabs on the RTK Law.

The Case Background: What’s the Story?

This case kicked off when Todd Shepherd and Broad and Liberty, Inc. fired off an RTK Law request to the Pennsylvania Office of the Governor. They were after a stash of documents tied to workplace misconduct investigations, zeroing in on Mike Vereb and Brianda Freistat. The wish list included manuals on handling misconduct probes, emails involving Vereb and Freistat, and communications about allegations—all spanning various dates in 2023. The Office didn’t roll out the red carpet; it handed over some redacted records but held others back, leaning on RTK Law exemptions like personal info, noncriminal investigative materials, and predecisional deliberations.

The petitioners weren’t thrilled, so they appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR). The OOR gave them a partial win, greenlighting some disclosures but upholding denials on others. That landed the case in the Commonwealth Court’s lap, where the judges affirmed parts of the OOR’s call, flipped others, and kicked some issues back for a second look. It’s a classic tug-of-war: the public’s right to peek behind the curtain versus the government’s claim to keep certain doors locked.

The Legal Issues: What Was on the Line?

The court had a few hot potatoes to juggle:

Misdirected Requests : Was the ask for misconduct manuals aimed at the wrong agency?
Nonexistent Records : Did the Office prove some records just don’t exist?
Exemption Claims : Were the withheld docs really shielded by exemptions for predecisional deliberations, noncriminal investigations, or attorney-client privilege?

These aren’t small potatoes—they’re the kind of questions that can ripple out and reshape how RTK Law requests play out down the road. The court had to weigh the RTK Law’s transparency push against the need to shield sensitive internal workings.

The Court’s Reasoning: How They Sorted It Out

The judges didn’t mess around—they rolled up their sleeves, reviewed documents in camera (that’s fancy talk for “in private”), and dissected the Office’s arguments. Here’s how they broke it down:

Misdirected Request (Item No. 1) : The court nodded to the OOR’s take that the request for manuals was off-target. They pointed the petitioners to the Office of Administration instead.
Nonexistent Records (Item Nos. 2 and 7) : The Office convinced the court it did its homework with a good faith search, and those records? They’re not there.
Insufficiently Specific Requests (Item Nos. 3, 4, and 6) : After eyeballing the docs, the court okayed withholding some under exemptions like predecisional deliberations, attorney-client privilege, and noncriminal investigative materials.
Predecisional Deliberative Exemption (Item No. 5) : Here’s where it gets juicy. The OOR said some docs were properly withheld as internal deliberations, but the court pushed back. They found stuff like travel reimbursements and employee separations didn’t cut it as “deliberative” and sent those back to the OOR to rethink under other exemptions.
Noncriminal Investigative Materials (Item No. 8) : The OOR ruled the Office didn’t prove these were exempt, and the court let that stand.
Attorney-Client Privilege : The court gave a thumbs-up to shielding emails between the Office and its lawyers, even if they tied to press inquiries.

The court wasn’t shy about flexing its de novo review muscle—meaning they didn’t owe the OOR any deference and made their own calls on the facts and law.

The Decision: Who Won What?

It’s a split decision, folks:

Affirmed : The court backed the OOR on noncriminal investigative materials (three docs stayed under wraps) and attorney-client privilege for Item No. 5 records.
Reversed : They overturned the OOR on some predecisional deliberation claims, saying routine admin tasks don’t qualify.
Remanded : A batch of docs got sent back to the OOR to weigh alternative exemptions the Office had pitched.

This mixed bag shows RTK Law cases aren’t black-and-white—they’re a puzzle where every piece gets a hard look.

Analysis: Why Should You Care?

What’s the big picture here? For starters, Shepherd v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor hammers home a few key lessons:

Aim Straight : Misdirect an RTK request, and you’re out of luck. Know your agency.
Prove It : Agencies dodging disclosure better bring receipts—detailed affidavits and logs, not vague excuses.
Exemption Limits : Not every internal chat is “predecisional.” The court drew a line—routine stuff like reimbursements doesn’t get a free pass.
Privilege Holds : Attorney-client privilege is ironclad, even for press-related advice. Lawyers can strategize without spilling the beans.

For requesters, it’s a nudge to sharpen your asks and brace for pushback. For agencies, it’s a call to dot your i’s and cross your t’s when claiming exemptions. I love how this ruling keeps the RTK Law’s transparency heartbeat alive while respecting legit privacy lines. The court’s smackdown on overbroad “deliberative” claims is a win for accountability—agencies can’t just hide behind that label willy-nilly.

Conclusion: Keep Your Eyes Open

The Commonwealth Court’s take in Shepherd v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor isn’t just legalese—it’s a playbook for navigating RTK Law’s twists and turns. At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we’re here to decode these rulings for you, whether you’re chasing records or guarding them. Got questions about this case or your own RTK adventure? Hit us up at [insert contact info] or sound off in the comments. Stick with this blog for more on Pennsylvania’s legal landscape—there’s always more to unpack!

Agencies beware: Injunctive relief against users of the Right-to-Know Law may be increasingly difficult under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

Tue, 15 Apr 2025 19:36:47 GMT

Agencies beware: Injunctive relief against users of the Right-to-Know Law may be increasingly difficult under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

Recently, Upper Pottsgrove Township announced that their request for a temporary injunction against local resident Matthew Murray was denied by Montgomery County Judge Saltz. The Township sought this injunction to halt what they describe as an “abuse” of Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), pointing to over 100 requests filed by Murray that have allegedly cost the Township more than $55,000 in legal fees. While the Township appears to remain committed to pursuing a permanent injunction, the denial of temporary relief raises significant questions about the viability of their approach — particularly in light of Pennsylvania’s recently enacted “anti-SLAPP” statute .

The Right-to-Know Law and Injunctions: A High Bar to Clear

Pennsylvania’s RTKL , codified at 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., grants citizens the right to access public records from government agencies, fostering transparency and accountability. However, the law includes safeguards against misuse. Notably, Section 506(a) permits agencies to deny requests if they are “disruptive;” however, the RTKL narrowly defines a disruptive request as one involving “repeated requests” (as in, more than one) for the same record that have “placed an unreasonable burden on the agency.”

Here, Upper Pottsgrove Township sought an injunction in Upper Pottsgrove Township v. Matthew E. Murray, 2025-00481 (Mont. Com. Pl.) arguing that Murray’s filing of over 100 requests constitutes harassment or an undue burden, citing a purported expenditure of over $55,000 in legal fees. Yet, Judge Jeffrery Saltz, earlier this year, denied the temporary injunction, signaling that the Township failed to meet the stringent requirements, at least with respect to preliminary injunctive relief.

In Pennsylvania, a temporary injunction requires the moving party to demonstrate:

A likelihood of success on the merits,
Irreparable harm absent relief,
A balance of equities favoring the injunction, and
That the public interest supports the action.

The denial suggests that the Township may not have provided sufficient evidence of Murray’s intent to disrupt — beyond the volume of requests — or convincingly shown irreparable harm. Courts are cautious about injunctions that could restrict statutory rights, such as those under the RTKL, which may explain the judge’s interpretation of the law in this instance.

Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute: A Game-Changer for Requesters

Adding complexity to the Township’s strategy is Pennsylvania’s “anti-SLAPP” statute, enacted in July 2024, titled the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”). “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — lawsuits aimed at silencing critics through legal intimidation. The anti-SLAPP law protects “public expression,” including constitutional rights for speech and to petition the government guaranteed under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, by allowing defendants to file a special motion to dismiss such claims early in litigation.

Murray’s Right-to-Know requests very likely fall within this protected category, as they are a form of petitioning the government for information and an exercise of speech rights. The Township’s lawsuit, seeking to enjoin further requests, could be viewed as an attempt to chill this right, and Murray could file an anti-SLAPP motion that could mandate that the Township pay Murray’s attorney’s fees, court costs and expenses .

Given the denial of the temporary injunction, the Township’s case already appears shaky, and an anti-SLAPP motion could expedite dismissal of the entire lawsuit.

The Township’s Dilemma: Legitimate Concern or Overreach?

The Township’s frustration is not without merit. Responding to over 100 requests from a single individual can strain limited resources, and the alleged amount of $55,000 in legal fees is no small sum. Section 506(a) of the RTKL offers a remedy by allowing denials of disruptive requests, but this requires concrete evidence of repetitive requests and a substantial burden. The judge’s ruling suggests the Township has not yet met this evidentiary threshold, at least for preliminary relief.

Pursuing a permanent injunction, as the Township intends, carries risks. If perceived as retaliatory, their action could trigger anti-SLAPP consequences, including fee awards to Murray. Moreover, a successful injunction might deter other citizens from filing legitimate RTKL requests, undermining transparency — a core purpose of the law.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

Upper Pottsgrove Township’s bid to enjoin Murray under the RTKL reflects a clash between resource management and transparency. However, the denial of temporary relief and the protections of Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP statute likely will tilt the scales in Murray’s favor. As the Township presses for a permanent injunction, they must tread carefully — a failure to substantiate their claims could prove costly, both financially and in terms of public trust. This case serves as a reminder that injunctive relief against RTKL requesters is a steep hill to climb, particularly with new legal tools like the anti-SLAPP statute empowering citizens to fight back.

The Importance of Procedural Due Process: A Successful Expungement of a Mental Health Commitment In Erie County, PA

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 17:14:33 GMT

The Importance of Procedural Due Process: A Successful Expungement of a Mental Health Commitment in Erie County, PA

In the realm of mental health law, the rights of individuals to due process are paramount, ensuring that any involuntary commitment is conducted with the utmost respect for legal procedures. Recently, at Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we achieved a significant legal victory in Erie County, Pennsylvania, which underscores the critical nature of procedural due process under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act.

The Case at Hand

The case involved an individual who was involuntarily committed under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act. This section allows for emergency involuntary examination and treatment for up to 120 hours if a person is deemed to be severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate treatment. However, the Act also mandates specific procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the individual, including the requirement that a person must be examined by a physician within two hours of arriving at a mental health facility.

In this instance, the commitment paperwork did not clearly demonstrate that this critical examination had taken place within the required timeframe. This lack of documentation was a clear violation of procedural due process, which is designed to ensure that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty.

Legal Argument and Outcome

Our argument centered on the insufficiency of evidence regarding the timely examination. We contended that without clear proof of adherence to this procedural step, the commitment could not stand as legally valid. Here's how we approached this:

Evidence Review : We meticulously reviewed all available records from the hospital. The documentation lacked clear timestamps or notes indicating that an examination had occurred within the two-hour window post-arrival.
Legal Precedent : We cited relevant case law that emphasized the court's role in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence used in commitments. We argued that case law supported our need for clear documentation to uphold the commitment legally.
Due Process Violation : We highlighted that the absence of such documentation was not just an administrative oversight but a significant breach of the individual’s due process rights, potentially leading to wrongful deprivation of liberty.

The court agreed with our arguments. Recognizing the procedural due process violation, the court ordered the expungement of the involuntary commitment from the individual's record. This decision was not only a win for our client but also a reaffirmation of the legal system's commitment to protecting individual rights against potential abuses under the guise of mental health treatment.

Implications

This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights. It underscores the importance of:

Documentation : Every step in the commitment process must be meticulously documented to withstand legal scrutiny.
Timeliness : The requirement for a timely medical examination is not merely procedural; it is a safeguard against wrongful commitments.
Legal Representation : Having competent legal representation can make the difference between a record that haunts an individual for life and one that is rightfully expunged.

Conclusion

At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we remain committed to defending the rights of individuals in mental health law matters. This case in Erie County is a testament to our dedication to ensuring that every procedural aspect of the law is adhered to, protecting our clients from potential injustices. If you or someone you know has been subjected to an involuntary commitment and believe there may have been procedural irregularities, please contact us at chadwick@schneelegal.com or visit our website at www.schneelegal.com. We're here to help you navigate the complexities of the legal system and seek justice.

Note: This post does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice specific to your situation, please consult with an attorney.

Are public libraries subject to the Right-to-Know Law? Definitely maybe.

Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:56:35 GMT

Are public libraries subject to the Right-to-Know Law? Definitely maybe.

The Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) is a powerful tool that provides citizens with the right of access to public records. It is designed to promote transparency and accountability in government. However, the application of this law to various entities, including public libraries, can sometimes be complex and nuanced. This blog post aims to analyze whether public libraries may be subject to the Pennsylvania RTKL in light of the case Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co., 299 A.3d 196 (Pa. Commw. 2023).

The Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law

The RTKL affords the public with access to records of state and local governments, providing Pennsylvanians with the right to request and receive records showing precisely what the government is doing. The law contains strict deadlines for responses and numerous exemptions. All “records” (as defined by the RTKL) within Pennsylvania are presumptively subject to public access.

One of the threshold questions, however, is what constitutes a local agency?

Volunteer fire companies may be subject to the disclosure requirements of the RTKL - Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co.

In case of Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co., the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County affirmed a Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) and ordered the Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Company to turn over documents responsive to a RTKL request made by a requester. The key issue was whether the Fire Company was a “local agency” subject to the RTKL. The court found that the Fire Company was indeed a local agency23. However, on appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the Commonwealth Court found the record lacked facts necessary for a meaningful review of the nature of the relationship between the Fire Company and Clinton Township and remanded the case for further development of the factual record.

Following the remand, the trial court engaged in further factfinding and found that the Fire Company was a local agency, and, on appeal, the Commonwealth Court agreed. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court found that “the nature of the Fire Company’s functions” was a “‘strong factor in favor of finding that’” the Fire Company is a local agency because providing fire and emergency services is an essential function of government.

The Court also looked the level of government control over the Fire Company, and found that, while a municipality did not exercise “active control” over the Fire Company, the ability to “exercise passive or political control and oversight over” the Fire Company weighed in favor of finding the Fire Company to be a local agency.

Finally, the Court found that, because more than 50% of the Fire Company’s funding comes from public sources and that one municipality had exercised its authority to audit the Fire Company in the past. As a result, the Court found that this factor also weighed in favor of finding the Fire Company is an agency subject to the open records requirements of the Right-to-Know Law.

Implications for Public Libraries

While the Pysher case is unreported – meaning that it is not controlling on any court outside of the parties in that case – it is still considered “persuasive,” meaning that it could be used to influence cases involving other agencies, such as public libraries.

If a public library is considered a “local agency” under the RTKL, it would be subject to the law’s provisions. This would mean that the public could request and receive records from the library, subject to certain exemptions.

However, whether a public library qualifies as a “local agency” may depend on the specific facts and circumstances, including the nature of the relationship between the library and the local government. As the Pysher case demonstrates, this can be a complex and fact-intensive inquiry that looks to (1) the nature of the entity’s functions; (2) the degree of governmental control; and (3) the degree of financial control.

In conclusion, while the Pysher case does not directly address the issue of public libraries and the RTKL, it provides valuable insights into how courts may approach the question. It underscores the importance of a detailed factual analysis in determining whether an entity like a public library is subject to the RTKL. As always, specific legal questions should be addressed with the assistance of legal counsel, including the attorneys at Schnee Legal Services, LLC.

This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney for legal advice.

Post-trial motions not required in Right-to-Know Law enforcement

Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:41:00 GMT

As a matter of first impression, a Commonwealth Court judge has ruled that post-trial motions under Pa. R.Civ.P. 227.1 are not required in an appeal from an order in a Right-to-Know Law enforcement action.

In Walker v. County of Bucks, a requester filed an enforcement action against an agency and its open-records officer where the agency had filed two appeals of the same OOR final order (rather than two appeals of two different OOR final orders), arguing that relief in mandamus was appropriate because one of the two OOR final orders was not appealed.[1] The trial court rejected the complaint, holding that relief in mandamus “is not clear at this time” due to a pending motion to substitute one its appeals.[2] The requester appealed but did not file post-trial motions.

The agency argued that, under Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1, the requester “waived all issues on appeal and her appeal must be dismissed” because she did not file post-trial motions. Commonwealth Court Judge Dumas disagreed, holding that a RTKL enforcement action “is not a situation where post-trial motions had to be filed” because the complaint in mandamus was covered by “‘petition practice’” as set forth under the Note to Pa R.A.P. 3761.[3] Instead, “it is evident that the mandamus action filed by Appellant was in petition practice, such that post-trial motions were not necessary.”[4]

While this is an unreported memorandum opinion of a single member of the Commonwealth Court, parties to a RTKL enforcement action potentially may not be required to file post-trial motions in order to preserve issues on appeal.

(This post should not be considered legal advice. For more information or to discuss, Attorney Schnee can be reached at chadwick@schneelegal.com ).

[1] Walker v. County of Bucks, 974 C.D. 2023 (Pa.Cmwlth. Jan. 31, 2024) (Dumas, J.) (unreported). The author represents the requester in this matter.

[2] Id.

[3]The Note provides

Pa.R.A.P. 3761(b) provides the method for seeking compliance with a final determination of the Office of Open Records in the Commonwealth Court. This differs from proceeding in the courts of common pleas, where the method to obtain judicial review of alleged failure to comply with a final determination of the Office of Open Records may be an action in mandamus or other petition authorized by local rule. Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Township, 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). Use of this petition is appropriate when the final determination was not appealed. If an appeal was taken and the order affirmed by the Commonwealth Court, enforcement is not of the final determination of the Office of Open Records, but rather of the order of the Commonwealth Court.

[4] Walker v. County of Bucks, 974 C.D. 2023 (Pa.Cmwlth. Jan. 31, 2024) (Dumas, J.) (unreported).

Court rules agency violated Sunshine Act in amending agenda

Sun, 15 Dec 2024 16:51:00 GMT

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth issued a ruling on November 8, 2023 holding that an agency violated open meeting laws when it added the consideration of a collective bargaining agreement with its teachers union without first providing public notice.

The case, brought by now-Senator Jarrett Coleman, alleged that the Parkland School District violated the Sunshine Act when it voted to approve a multi-year collective bargaining agreement with its teachers union when that item was not previously listed as part of a public agenda. In other words, the public had no prior notice that the collective bargaining agreement would be considered unless they happened to attend the public meeting.

The case concerned 2021 amendments to the Sunshine Act that, until now, had never previously been interpreted by an appellate court. Specifically, this section, Section 712.1, provides as follows:

(a) Official action.--Except as provided in subsection (b), (c), (d) or (e), an agency may not take official action on a matter of agency business at a meeting if the matter was not included in the notification required under section 709(c.1) (relating to public notice).

(b) Emergency business.--An agency may take official action at a regularly scheduled meeting or an emergency meeting on a matter of agency business relating to a real or potential emergency involving a clear and present danger to life or property regardless of whether public notice was given for the meeting.

(c) Business arising within 24 hours before meeting.--An agency may take official action on a matter of agency business that is not listed on a meeting agenda if:

(1) the matter arises or is brought to the attention of the agency within the 24-hour period prior to the meeting; and

(2) the matter is de minimis in nature and does not involve the expenditure of funds or entering into a contract or agreement by the agency.

(d) Business arising during meeting.--If, during the conduct of a meeting, a resident or taxpayer brings a matter of agency business that is not listed on the meeting agenda to the attention of the agency, the agency may take official action to refer the matter to staff, if applicable, for the purpose of researching the matter for inclusion on the agenda of a future meeting, or, if the matter is de minimis in nature and does not involve the expenditure of funds or entering into a contract or agreement, the agency may take official action on the matter.

(e) Changes to agenda.--

(1) Upon majority vote of the individuals present and voting during the conduct of a meeting, an agency may add a matter of agency business to the agenda. The reasons for the changes to the agenda shall be announced at the meeting before any vote is conducted to make the changes to the agenda. The agency may subsequently take official action on the matter added to the agenda. The agency shall post the amended agenda on the agency's publicly accessible Internet website, if available, and at the agency's principal office location no later than the first business day following the meeting at which the agenda was changed.

(2) This subsection shall not apply to a conference or a working session under section 707 (relating to exceptions to open meetings) or an executive session under section 708 (relating to executive sessions).

(f) Minutes.--If action is taken upon a matter of agency business added to the agenda under this section, the minutes of the meeting shall reflect the substance of the matter added, the vote on the addition and the announced reasons for the addition.

65 Pa.C.S. § 712.1.

The District argued that Section 712.1(a) of the Sunshine Act allows it to amend its agenda for any reason because of the word “or” within this subsection. In contrast, the Plaintiff argued that subsections (b)-(d) of this section provide for the reasons for amending agendas; whereas, subsection (e) provides the process for amending an agenda.

The Commonwealth Court agreed that agencies can only amend agendas for the limited reasons set forth under subsections (b)-(d) of the Sunshine Act.

This decision ensures that, when an agency publishes it agenda, the agency can only amend its agenda for emergencies and other limited reasons. In other words, as a result of this case, the public is able to have advance notice of what actions its government are considering prior to each public meeting.

Attorney Schnee can be reached at chadwick@schneelegal.com or 412.904.2172 .

Employment discrimination in the workplace - Pennsylvania

Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:00:00 GMT

Employment discrimination is a serious issue that affects many workers in Pennsylvania. If you believe you have been discriminated against in the workplace, you may be entitled to file a claim. The process of bringing an employment discrimination claim in Pennsylvania can be complex, but with the right information and guidance, you can navigate it successfully. In this blog post, we will discuss the steps involved in bringing an employment discrimination claim in Pennsylvania.

Step 1: Understand the Different Types of Employment Discrimination

Before you can bring a claim for employment discrimination, it is important to understand what constitutes discrimination in the workplace. Under Pennsylvania law, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, age (40 years and older), or genetic information. Discrimination can take many forms, including:

Refusing to hire, promote, or train an employee because of their protected status.
Paying an employee less than other employees doing similar work because of their protected status.
Firing or laying off an employee because of their protected status.
Harassing an employee because of their protected status.
Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a disability.

If you have experienced any of these forms of discrimination in the workplace, you may have grounds for a claim.

Step 2: File a Charge with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Before you can file a lawsuit for employment discrimination in Pennsylvania, you must first file a charge with either the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The PHRC is a state agency that handles discrimination claims in Pennsylvania, while the EEOC is a federal agency that handles claims under federal law.

To file a charge with either agency, you must complete a form that provides details about the discrimination you experienced, including when it occurred, who was involved, and how it affected you. You must file your charge within 180 days of the discriminatory act, or within 300 days if the discrimination occurred in a place with its own state or local anti-discrimination law. Once your charge is filed, the agency will investigate the matter and may attempt to mediate a settlement between you and your employer.

Step 3: Consider Mediation

In some cases, the PHRC or the EEOC may offer mediation as an option for resolving your discrimination claim. Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party works with you and your employer to try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Mediation can be a faster and less expensive way to resolve your claim than going to court, but it is not always successful.

Step 4: File a Lawsuit

If mediation is unsuccessful, or if you choose not to pursue it, you may file a lawsuit against your employer. To file a lawsuit for employment discrimination in Pennsylvania, you must first obtain a right-to-sue letter from the PHRC or the EEOC. This letter gives you permission to file a lawsuit in court.

In your lawsuit, you must prove that your employer engaged in discriminatory behavior and that this behavior harmed you in some way, such as by causing you to lose your job or suffer emotional distress. You may also be entitled to damages, such as lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages.

Step 5: Seek Legal Representation

Bringing an employment discrimination claim in Pennsylvania can be a complicated and time-consuming process. To give yourself the best chance of success, it is important to seek the assistance of an experienced employment discrimination attorney. An attorney like J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq. can help you navigate the legal system, gather evidence, and present your case in the most effective way possible.

In conclusion, if you have experienced employment discrimination in Pennsylvania, you have legal rights and options. If you need to find a discrimination lawyer near you, Contact attorney Schnee at 717.400.5955 or chadwick@schneelegal.com to learn more.