MacElree Harvey, Ltd.

Initiative in Practice

Articles by Our Attorneys

Dealing with Domestic Violence in Family Law

by Leave a Comment

Domestic violence issues arise frequently in Delaware family law. A victim of domestic violence should know that they can seek an immediate Protection from Abuse (PFA) Order to safeguard themselves and their children. In an emergency, a victim can and should request an order barring the abuser from having any contact with them. Emergency PFA Orders in Delaware can grant temporary possession of the home and custody, among other forms of relief. These orders typically remain in place until a final hearing on the merits.

After filing for a PFA in Delaware, a domestic violence victim should work closely with their Delaware family law attorney to gather evidence. This may include subpoenaing police officers or medical providers. Common forms of evidence include text messages, video or audio recordings, and photographs.

Before the final hearing, the victim may consider negotiating a consent PFA Order with the other party. While a consent order does not include a legal finding of wrongdoing, it carries the same legal weight as one issued after a full hearing. Consent orders can give the victim greater control over key matters such as temporary possession of the family home, custody of children, and financial support.

Importantly, a Delaware PFA Order prohibits the person subject to the order from owning or possessing firearms while it is in effect. Violating a PFA Order is a criminal offense and can lead to serious legal consequences.

If you have questions about domestic violence legal protection in Delaware, contact Patrick J. Boyer, Delaware family law attorney. Patrick represents clients in a range of matters including domestic violence cases, divorce in Delaware, property division, alimony, child custody and visitation, and child support. He also advises clients on guardianship and third-party visitation. Patrick practices out of the firm’s Centreville, Delaware office.

Why I Work at MacElree Harvey Employee Spotlight: Matthew Cooper 

by Leave a Comment

Why did you choose to work at MacElree Harvey? 
I chose MacElree Harvey because of its deep roots in Chester County and its reputation as a full-service law firm with rich traditions. The firm’s commitment to serving the community and its ability to handle sophisticated legal matters made it an ideal place for me to grow professionally. 

What makes you stay? 
The people, the mentorship and the culture. I work on sophisticated transactions and matters, but I am still able to spend time with my family. That balance is invaluable. 

How has your career grown since joining the firm? 
Since joining MacElree Harvey, I have had the opportunity to work on increasingly complex and noteworthy transactions. The firm has consistently encouraged my development by offering mentorship, marketing resources and opportunities that have helped shape the direction of my career. 

What do you enjoy most about your practice here? 
Handling sophisticated work in a firm that values both professional excellence and personal growth. The matters we handle are impactful and often have tangible results within our local communities. 

How would you describe the culture at MacElree Harvey? 
Collaborative and approachable. It feels like a true community, both within the firm and in our outreach. My colleagues genuinely want me to succeed and are available to guide and support. 

What makes this firm different from other places you’ve worked? 
The culture here is entirely different – it’s local, it’s genuine, and it’s rooted in long-standing relationships. There’s a sense of pride and ownership in the work we do that you don’t find everywhere. 

What is one moment at MacElree Harvey that made you feel proud to work here? 
Working on local transactions and then seeing those businesses thrive in our community, and that’s incredibly fulfilling. When I hear community members talk about the positive impact of these projects, it’s humbling to know I played a role in making them happen. 

How has the firm supported your professional or personal goals? 
They have taken the time to truly listen to what I want to achieve in my goals and have offered thoughtful guidance and support to help me get there. They do not ask to check a box; they ask because they actually care. 

What values do you see lived out at MacElree Harvey every day? 
Compassion, innovation, community involvement, and approachability. These aren’t just words—they’re reflected in how we interact with clients, with each other, and with our broader community. 

How do you collaborate with others at the firm? 
Attorney’s doors are typically open, which encourages spontaneous collaboration and makes brainstorming easy and effective.  We also hold bi-weekly department lunch meetings to make sure we are staying on top of legal trends and developments.  

What’s something unique about the team you work with? 
Each attorney in our Business Department brings a unique specialty to the table. That diversity of expertise allows us to deliver tailored, sophisticated and well-rounded solutions to our clients. 

How has mentorship or leadership here shaped your path? 
I’ve learned so much from leaders like Harry (DiDonato), Mary Kay (Gaver), and Andy (Silverman). Their willingness to share knowledge, experiences and guidance have been invaluable to my development. 

What is your favorite MacElree memory so far? 
A favorite MacElree tradition is our annual Old Fashioned Christmas party, a client open house held during the Annual West Chester Parade. It’s a special event where an attorney and their spouse dress in vintage Christmas attire and greet guests. It’s festive, fun, and a great way to show a bit of personality to clients while celebrating with the community. Of course, becoming a partner in 2024 was a proud and meaningful milestone in my career as well. 

What’s something people might not know about working here that they should? 
The work we do is impactful. Behind every legal matter is a client, a community, or a cause that benefits from our efforts, and that makes the work incredibly rewarding. 

Employment Law Update April 2025

by Leave a Comment

April 2025 brought fundamental shifts in employment law brought about by the new presidential administration, and a notable Pennsylvania federal court decision in the area of disability protections relating to medical marijuana. See the latest developments below.

Trump Executive Order to End Use of Disparate Impact in Federal Discrimination Cases

President Donald Trump signed an executive order dismantling the use of “disparate impact” as a basis for federal anti-discrimination enforcement. Disparate impact — a long-standing legal theory under civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act — allows discrimination claims without proof of intent if a policy disproportionately harms protected groups. Trump’s order rejects this approach, calling it “inconsistent with the Constitution” and harmful to merit-based governance.

The order revokes prior federal policies endorsing disparate impact liability and directs agencies to deprioritize enforcement actions based on it. It also tasks the attorney general with repealing or amending Title VI regulations referencing the theory and instructs agencies like the DOJ, EEOC, HUD, and CFPB to review and potentially roll back existing cases relying on it. Critics warn the order marks a significant rollback of civil rights enforcement, while supporters say it restores focus on individual equality and merit.

Trump DOL Signals Intent to Rescind Biden-Era Independent Contractor Rule

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has indicated in recent court filings that it intends to reconsider and potentially rescind the 2024 independent contractor rule issued during the Biden administration. This move reflects a broader shift in policy following the 2024 election of President Donald Trump, whose administration appears poised to revive the more business-friendly 2021 rule implemented during his first term.

The 2024 rule, which took effect in March, reinstated a six-factor “economic realities” test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule replaced the Trump-era version, which had streamlined classification criteria. Biden’s rule has faced five legal challenges, and while courts have so far upheld it or dismissed suits on procedural grounds, the DOL has begun asking courts to pause ongoing litigation, signaling a regulatory reversal.

In court statements, the DOL emphasized that the rule is not binding law but rather interpretive guidance for enforcement. It also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which limits judicial deference to agency rules, further weakening the 2024 rule’s authority. However, for now, the 2024 rule remains in effect, creating legal uncertainty for workers and employers alike looking ahead.

Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana User Can pursue Disability Accommodation claim Under State Discrimination law

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has revived a disability bias claim brought by medical marijuana user and job applicant against a Cleveland-based construction firm. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville had previously dismissed the claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), ruling that employers are not required to accommodate marijuana use. However, upon reconsideration, the judge found that the applicant’s allegation—that the company failed to explore alternative accommodations unrelated to cannabis use—warranted further examination.

The applicant had been offered a project engineer role in 2023, but the offer was rescinded after he tested positive for THC and disclosed his certified medical marijuana use for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. While his claim under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act was allowed to proceed, his PHRA claim was initially dismissed. The applicant filed a motion seeking an appeal, which the judge denied, but used the opportunity to reverse his prior ruling.

Judge Colville emphasized that employers must still engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations, even if medical marijuana use is not protected under PHRA. The case will now proceed on these grounds.

The case is Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co. LLC, case number 2:23-cv-01975, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.

Pre-Nuptial Agreements 101

by Leave a Comment

A pre-nuptial agreement in Delaware (also known as a prenup) is a signed legal contract between two spouses that defines or limits statutory rights arising from their marital relationship. These rights often include, but are not limited to, claims to marital property in Delaware, waivers or limitations on future spousal support or alimony, and the waiver or limitation of inheritance rights.

Before signing a pre-nuptial agreement, each spouse should fully understand the Delaware family law protections and obligations that exist without such an agreement. Often, one party may be giving up rights they would otherwise have under Delaware divorce laws. A comprehensive understanding of one’s income, assets, debts, and future financial needs is essential in the divorce planning process.

Ideally, Delaware prenups should be negotiated and signed well in advance of the wedding date. While there is no strict legal deadline, signing a prenup shortly before the ceremony can raise enforceability concerns. Delaware courts may set aside a pre-nuptial agreement if it was not entered into voluntarily. Executing a marital agreement on the eve of a wedding, especially when wedding expenses have already been incurred, gives one party an opportunity to later argue that the agreement was signed under pressure or duress.

In many cases, Delaware prenuptial agreements include a schedule of each party’s assets and debts at the time of marriage. Making a full and accurate financial disclosure is crucial—failure to do so can render the agreement invalid in the future.

If you’re considering a pre-nuptial agreement in Delaware or have questions about your legal options, our Delaware family law attorneys can help. Contact our office at 302-654-4454 to schedule a consultation.

Author Patrick J. Boyer concentrates his practice on Delaware family law. He advocates in various areas including, but not limited to, divorce in Delaware, property division, alimony, child custody and visitation, child support, and domestic violence cases. In addition, Patrick assists his clients with issues involving guardianship and third-party visitation. He is licensed in Delaware and Pennsylvania and works out of the firm’s Centreville, Delaware office.

Family Court from Start to Finish

by Leave a Comment

Many clients have questions about the family law process in Delaware and Pennsylvania and how long a Family Court case typically takes. Below is a quick explanation of the standard timeline for a non-emergency family law case.

A case begins with the filing of a Petition in Family Court, where the Petitioner formally requests legal relief—such as divorce, child custody, or child support. The Petition outlines the facts of the case, the legal grounds for relief, and the specific remedies sought. Whether you are working with a child custody attorney in Delaware or a divorce lawyer in Pennsylvania, the process begins here.

After the Petition is filed, the other party—commonly referred to as the Respondent—must be served with legal papers. This means the Respondent must receive official notice of the legal proceedings, usually through personal service. Once served, the Respondent has 20 days to file an Answer, where they either admit or deny the claims made in the Petition. In addition, the Respondent may file counterclaims, such as requesting spousal support (alimony) if it was not included in the original filing.

After this initial stage, the case may proceed to family court mediation or be scheduled before a Family Court Judge for a Case Management Conference. Key topics discussed in this conference include discovery needs, the expected number of witnesses, and the scheduling of a final hearing in Family Court. If discovery is required, each party may request access to financial records, text messages, emails, or other documentation, and may conduct depositions with sworn testimony.

At the final hearing, both parties can testify, present witnesses, and submit evidence (such as documents or digital records) for the Family Court Judge’s consideration. After evaluating all submitted materials, the Judge will issue a final ruling. If either party disagrees with the decision, they have the right to file an appeal in Family Court, requesting review by a higher court.

By understanding this step-by-step family law timeline, clients can better prepare for proceedings and work more effectively with their Delaware or Pennsylvania family law attorney to achieve the best possible outcome.

If you have questions about Family Court, please contact MacElree Harvey’s Centreville Delaware office at 302-654-4454. Visit macelree.com to learn more.

Author Patrick J. Boyer concentrates his practice on Family Law. He advocates in various areas including, but not limited to, divorce, property division, alimony, child custody and visitation, child support, and domestic violence. In addition, Patrick assists his clients with issues involving guardianship and third-party visitation. He is licensed in Delaware and Pennsylvania and works out of the firm’s Centreville, Delaware office.

Domino’s On the Hook for $2.3 Million Motorcycle Crash Jury Verdict – Lessons on Vicarious Liability and How to Sue a Franchisor

by Leave a Comment

When someone gets injured at a Franchise or by one of its employees, can the Franchisor be held liable for a Franchisee’s Negligence?

In a recent Pennsylvania case, a Domino’s pizza franchisor was held liable for a $2.3 million jury verdict in favor of a motorcycle crash victim who was injured by a negligent Domino’s franchisee delivery driver.

This case sheds light on Vicarious Liability and how to successfully sue a Franchisor.

What is Vicarious Liability and Why is it Important?

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party (Principal) responsible for the negligent actions of another party (Agent), based upon their relationship. Vicarious Liability is important in catastrophic injury cases because suing the alleged Principal can provide the accident victim additional compensation through the insurance coverage or assets of the Principal.

This Vicarious Liability concept is particularly significant in Franchise relationships, where Franchisors typically argue they are not responsible for the day-to-day operations of Franchisees. Franchisors often claim that the lack of control should negate any claim of Vicarious Liability.

However, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Coryell v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, provides a key example of how a Franchisor can be held liable for injuries caused by a Franchisee’s employee.

What Happened in the Recent Domino’s Pizza Case?

The case arose from a devastating motorcycle accident involving Clarence David Coryell. In July 2016, Steven Morris, a delivery driver for Robizza, Inc., a Domino’s Pizza Franchisee, made a negligent left turn, colliding with Mr. Coryell. The collision resulted in catastrophic injuries, ultimately leading to amputation of Coryell’s leg after multiple surgeries.

Cornell sued not only Morris (Delivery Driver) and Robizza (Franchisee) but also Domino’s Pizza LLC (Franchisor), arguing that Domino’s exercised such significant control over Robizza’s operations that it should be held vicariously liable for the accident. Domino’s, in contrast, claimed that its control over Robizza was limited to protecting its brand and ensuring product consistency, not day-to-day management.

The Legal Battle Over Vicarious Liability

The key question before the Court was whether Domino’s exercised enough control over Robizza to be considered legally responsible for its Franchisee’s negligence.

In Pennsylvania, a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable if it controls the “physical conduct in the performance of the service” of the Franchisee. In simpler terms, if the Franchisor dictates not just the outcome (e.g., high-quality pizza) but also the precise manner in which the Franchisee runs its business (e.g., employee training, delivery procedures, and customer service practices), then it may be responsible for the Franchisee’s actions.

During the trial, evidence showed that Domino’s dictated many aspects of Robizza’s operations beyond brand protection, including:

• Hiring and training procedures: Domino’s required Robizza to follow strict training programs.

• Operational policies: Domino’s set extensive rules on how the store must function, from cleaning schedules to customer service protocols.

• Delivery standards: The jury heard testimony that Domino’s exercised control over how deliveries were made, which was central to the accident at issue.

Ultimately, the jury found that Domino’s had either exercised or had the right to exercise sufficient control over Robizza, making the Franchisor vicariously liable for the crash. The verdict resulted in a judgment of over $2.3 million against Domino’s, Robizza, and the delivery driver.

Why this Domino’s Case Matters to Accident Victims and their Lawyers

For accident victims and Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyers, this case highlights an important legal avenue for securing full compensation. Franchisees often operate as small businesses with limited insurance coverage and assets. However, Franchisor’s like Domino’s have significantly greater financial resources and additional insurance policies. If a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable, an injured party has a much better chance of recovering full and fair compensation.

Key Takeaways Regarding Vicarious Liability of Franchisors

  • Injury victims and their lawyers should consider whether a Franchisor, not just the Franchisee, can be held responsible for their damages.
  • Franchisees should be aware that despite being labeled as independent businesses, the extent of control exerted by the Franchisor may impact liability.
  •  Franchisors should ensure that their franchise agreements and operational policies do not overreach into day-to-day management if they wish to avoid vicarious liability. In the alternative, Franchisors should increase their liability insurance coverage to protect their assets from potential claims of Vicarious Liability.

If you have questions about Pennsylvania Personal Injury Claims or how Vicarious Liability might apply, contact Tim Rayne, at 610-840-0124, [email protected] or TimRayneLaw.com for a free consultation.

LEGAL SERVICES

ABOUT US

NEWS & INSIGHTS

OFFICES

Centreville, DE

5721 Kennett Pike
Wilmington, DE 19807
302-654-4454
Learn More

Hockessin, DE

724 Yorklyn Rd #100
Hockessin, DE 19707
302-239-3700
Learn More

Kennett Square, PA

209 East State Street Road
Kennett Square, PA 19348
610-444-3180
Learn More

West Chester, PA

17 West Miner Street
West Chester, PA 19382
610-436-0100
Learn More