Jacob M. Gilboy

Jacob is a member of the Professional Liability Department where he focuses his practice in matters related to school leaders' liability, employment law, municipal liability and civil rights law. He has litigated cases before state and federal courts, as well as the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Jacob routinely represents both government and private employers in state and federal court in ADEA, ADA, Title VII, FMLA and PHRA matters.

With nearly two decades of prior experience serving his community in northeast Pennsylvania as a public school teacher and high school department head, Jacob is uniquely qualified to understand the intricacies of education litigation, among other professional liability fields. Jacob also previously spent time litigating cases from inception to resolution as a Plaintiff’s attorney, which further aids in his ability to navigate complex legal matters.

Jacob holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Scranton, a Master’s degree from Wilkes University and a juris doctor degree from Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

Jacob is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania State courts as well as in the United States District Court for the Middle District and Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He enjoys being active in his community through coaching youth sports and is a member of the Board of Directors for Friends of the Poor, Scranton.

Honors & Awards

•Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2024-2026)

Results

Secured Dismissal of a Suit Against a Dauphin County School District

We achieved dismissal of a suit against a school district by way of preliminary objections. The Dauphin County case involved allegations that the district deprived the plaintiffs of certain educational rights, premised on procedural due process violations, negligence and subornation of perjury. Preliminary objections were filed to the plaintiffs’ original complaint on both procedural and substantive grounds. Following the filing of an amended complaint and additional preliminary objections on similar grounds, argument was held. As a result, the court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice.

Defamation Action Against Public School District Dismissed

We successfully disposed of a defamation action via preliminary objections. The plaintiff brought a defamation action against a public school district and certain district officials, alleging that he was defamed through a series of internal text messages exchanged between an elementary principal and another parent. The defense raised several procedural violations that occurred in the pro se plaintiff’s filings, and also argued legal insufficiency by way of demurrer. Following oral argument, the court agreed, granted all preliminary objections, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Downsizing Has Not Slowed the U.S. Department of Education’s Pursuit of Title IX Investigations

April 1, 2026

The U.S. Department of Education continues to progress through its restructuring and downsizing as a result of the Trump administration’s promise to “break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states.”During a March 27, 2026, media release, the U.S. Department of Education stated as follows: “In a prudent step to save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and further reduce the federal education bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator Edward C. Forst today announced that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will move out of the Lyndon B. Johnson headquarters building. ED will relocate to 500 D Street SW, saving taxpayers approximately $4.8 million annually in operating costs and eliminating wasted space in a building that is roughly 70% vacant. ED’s move is targeted for August 2026.”Nevertheless, the ED remains active in investigating Title IX matters. For example, on March 31, 2026, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a complaint into the Contoocook Valley School District in Peterborough, New Hampshire, based on reports that the District was allowing biological men to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. The OCR has said it will investigate whether the district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) by allowing students access to intimate facilities based on “gender identity,” not biological sex. Relative to Pennsylvania, the ED also recently reported that The University of Pennsylvania entered into a resolution agreement to comply with Title IX, based upon alleged competitive advantage in allowing males to compete in women’s collegiate sports (female swimming and diving).While the future breadth and depth of the federal education agency remains uncertain, certain core functionality remains.For more information visit: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-downsize-footprint-washington-dc-and-save-taxpayers-over-48-million-annually

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law - Case Law Update

February 3, 2026

Pennsylvania Federal Court Dismisses IDEA Age-Out Challenge for Lack of StandingA.K. et al v. Council Rock School District et al., No. 2:25-cv-00294 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2025)The Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed the standing and questions surrounding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in regards to the “age-out” provision. This provision speaks to the availability of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), up until age 22. The plaintiffs, four students who qualify as children with disabilities under the IDEA, and their parents, sued Council Rock and Central Bucks School Districts, where the students attend school. The plaintiffs alleged that the districts threatened to terminate FAPE at age 21. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of standing and ripeness, which the district court granted without adjudicating the substantive age-out question.The plaintiffs alleged that the districts had adopted a policy of terminating students’ FAPE at the end of the school year in which they turn 21, stating that policy violates the IDEA, and “will deprive Plaintiffs of up to a year of a FAPE at a critical juncture of their lives.” The court, while not directly addressing the age-out question, held that the claims could not survive, and dismissal was appropriate due to a lack of standing because the alleged harm was speculative and not imminent. The decision is noteworthy because it illustrates how a federal court could deal with an IDEA age-out dispute by jurisdiction rather than its merits. Thus, age-out claims face both substantive and procedural hurdles, while standing issues may be dispositive. Legal Update for Special Education Law - February 2026 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright 2026 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact MEDeSatnick@mdwcg.com.

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

May 22, 2026

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 22, 2025