Source: https://www.kdvlaw.com/professional/gregory-s-hyman/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:18:50+00:00

Document:
Gregory Hyman, rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell, is a partner of the firm and co-chair of the Professional Liability Practice Group. He has a diverse litigation and counseling practice representing clients in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. For more than 20 years, Mr. Hyman has been defending public and private employers in employment practices liability cases, including discrimination, harassment, wrongful discharge, whistleblower and retaliation, defamation, breach of contract, wage and hour, and school law, before state and federal courts, administrative agencies and arbitration tribunals. Mr. Hyman also specializes in defending professionals in malpractice actions with an emphasis on defending lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, brokers, title agents, and real estate agents. Mr. Hyman also has substantial experience in directors and officers litigation.
In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Hyman counsels employers on day-to-day workplace issues, employment policies, restrictive covenants, severance contracts, and compliance with federal and state laws. He assists employers in connection with hiring, discipline, and termination decisions and in implementing policies and strategies to prevent claims by drafting and reviewing handbooks and conducting training sessions on equal employment opportunity and sexual harassment.
Mr. Hyman is a frequent presenter on employment-related topics and in the area of legal malpractice and risk management.
Silver v. DeFilippo, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2226 (Law Div. Essex May 17, 2017) (granting and affirming lawyer defendant’s motion to dismiss legal malpractice complaint and denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate).
Silver v. DeFilippo, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2225 (Law Div. Essex Aug. 4, 2017) (granting lawyer defendant’s motion to strike legal malpractice affirmative defenses and for issuance of a protective order).
Komisarchik v. Arbill Indus., No. 17-781, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140507, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 11, 2017) (dismissing Title VII religion and national origin discrimination case upon Rule 11 Notice of Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Dismiss).
Garcia v. A&M Industrial (2016) – Successfully secured a motion to dismiss in an age discrimination action after showing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
Perry v. Saffren & Weinberg (2014) – Successfully secured a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice action after showing that the plaintiff could not prove she would have prevailed in the underlying action.
Gallagher v. Atlantic City Board of Education, et al. (2010) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of all client defendants on all claims in an action involving whistleblowing activities and violations of due process arising out of the election for the position of board solicitor.
Cores v. Atlantic City Board of Education, et al. (2009) – Successfully represented all client-defendants in an action alleging claims of national origin discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation. The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of all claims after showing that documents evidencing the alleging discrimination were created by the plaintiff.
This suit stems from a ski trip comprised of approximately 118 guests, which took place at the Hilton Downtown Scranton Hotel and Conference Center. Upon arriving at the hotel, plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a series of discriminatory actions based on their race (African-American) including laborious check-in procedures, denial of adequate food and beverage and other hotel amenities, and having the police called because of a fight without a proper investigation by hotel staff. The District Court granted summary judgment in part to the hotel, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §2000a as well as the plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Curiale v. Kearney & Schweitzer, P.C., et al. (2005) – Successfully obtained the dismissal of all claims against the attorney-defendants in this legal malpractice action. The New Jersey Superior Court granted our motion to dismiss upon the showing that the plaintiff could not satisfy her burden that the attorney-defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss or that the attorney-defendant breached any duty to the plaintiff.
Raphael F. Nevins v. George Bryant, et al., C.A. No. 19975-NC, 885 A.2d 233 ( Del. Ch. May 17, 2005) – Successfully represented the director-defendants in this action under 8 Del. C. §225 to determine the proper directors of a non-profit corporation. The Delaware Court of Chancery, following a bench trial, found that the director-defendants were valid directors and rejected the plaintiff’s challenge to the actions taken to remove him from his positions in the company.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 §2000
 v. 
 v. 
 §225