Suzanne M. Murphy

Special Counsel

  • Suzanne M. Murphy
  • Phone: +1 973 424 2044

    Import to Address Book

  • Duane Morris LLP
    200 Campus Drive, Suite 300
    Florham Park, NJ 07932-1007
    USA

Suzanne M. Murphy practices in the area of litigation and has more than three decades of experience in complex commercial litigation, particularly involving environmental and employment law. Ms. Murphy’s breadth of experience gives her a unique ability to spot and solve issues and understand all aspects of complicated situations. She guides clients from strategizing resolution of disputes prior to litigation filing, to initial preparation of crafting defenses through settlement and/or trial, as well as at the appellate level.

While her work focuses on matters pending in New York and New Jersey, Ms. Murphy is often asked to solve the largest and most intricate compliance issues for environmental clients throughout the country. Ms. Murphy develops successful strategy for clients to avoid alleged liability under environmental statutes, including the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), New Jersey’s Spill Act and New York’s Navigation Law. Her work has focused upon singular sites as well as crafting strategy for handling environmental issues on company-wide bases. Ms. Murphy plays a critical role on Duane Morris’s team serving as National Coordinating Discovery counsel to a Fortune 10 energy company’s climate change docket.

In the area of employment law, Ms. Murphy lays the foundation for a compelling defense against wrongful termination lawsuits, including those alleging violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and Law Against Discrimination (LAD). She has defended Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies as well as Fortune 10 energy companies in all aspects of employment-related matters.

Relying on her comprehensive research and astute legal analysis, Ms. Murphy delivers success for clients with insightful assessment of pending or threatened claims, potential defenses, applicable insurance coverage issues and other contractual matters.

Ms. Murphy is a 1991 graduate, with honors, of the George Washington University Law School, where she was notes editor of the George Washington Law Review, and a graduate of Rutgers University.

Areas of Practice

  • Commercial Litigation and Appeals

  • Environmental Compliance and Litigation

  • Climate Change Litigation

  • Employment Litigation

  • Employment Counseling

Admissions

  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Education

  • The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 1991
    - Notes Editor, George Washington Law Review
  • Rutgers University, B.A., cum laude, 1988

Experience

  • Duane Morris LLP
    - Special Counsel, 2022-present
  • McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli PC
    - Of Counsel

Selected Publications

  • “Environmental Guidelines: Worker Exposure to Vapor Intrusion,” Corporate Counsel, 2004

  •  Note, “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act: A Case Study,” 58 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 877, June 1990

Representative Matters

  • Represented a Fortune 500 energy company, convincing the Eastern District of New York to reconsider a prior decision and grant summary judgment on a breach of contract claim against a competing energy company. The parties entered into an agreement whereby Defendant was obligated to have the capacity to receive, store, and transfer lubricant base oils; despite repeatedly acknowledging that it could accept a particular base oil, Defendant refused to do so unless the client entered into unrelated agreements. Defendant then claimed the need to substantially modify its facility to accept the product. The court initially denied summary judgment finding the facility modification a material issue of fact; on a motion for reconsideration, the Court reversed its decision finding it had overlooked a provision obligating Defendant to make any modifications necessary to enable storage. The case resulted in an eight figure settlement that the client found favorable.