By J. Chadwick Schnee January 1, 2026
The Importance of Transparency in Municipal Law
A judge 's gavel is sitting on top of a piece of paper that says we the people.
By J. Chadwick Schnee August 1, 2025
PA's Anti-SLAPP Shield: How We Won $6K+ for a Client's Free Speech Rights
By J. Chadwick Schnee May 15, 2025
Breaking Down the Commonwealth Court’s Ruling on RTK Law: A Closer Look at Shepherd v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
April 15, 2025
Agencies beware: Injunctive relief against users of the Right-to-Know Law may be increasingly difficult under Pennsylvania’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq March 15, 2025
The Importance of Procedural Due Process: A Successful Expungement of a Mental Health Commitment in Erie County, PA
A large library filled with lots of books on shelves.
By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq February 15, 2025
Are public libraries subject to the Right-to-Know Law? Definitely maybe.
A scale of justice sits on a wooden podium in a courtroom
By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq January 15, 2025
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).
A blurry picture of a city street with taxis driving down it.
By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq. December 15, 2024
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
A pen is sitting on top of a notebook next to a cell phone.
By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq. November 15, 2024
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.

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

J. Chadwick Schnee

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.

By J. Chadwick Schnee January 1, 2026
The Importance of Transparency in Municipal Law
A judge 's gavel is sitting on top of a piece of paper that says we the people.
By J. Chadwick Schnee August 1, 2025
PA's Anti-SLAPP Shield: How We Won $6K+ for a Client's Free Speech Rights
Show More