News
FIRM NEWS
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a Partial Dismissal on a USDC MA case. The Plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, parental leave, and retaliation. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed the 93A claims.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for their client. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color, and retaliation. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The MCAD agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of probable cause.
WOMEN IN LABOR BLOG
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims. Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority by issuing guidance expanding workplace protections to transgender employees. More specifically, the Texas federal court held that former President Biden’s EEOC expansion of the definition of the word “sex” was contrary to law. Biden’s EEOC guidance that the Texas court takes issue with was updated in April 2024, and specified that actions like using incorrect pronouns, denying access to bathrooms associated with gender identity, and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with gender identity could constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII. Court's Decision: The Court sided with the State of Texas, determining that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the scope of "sex" under Title VII beyond the biological binary. The guidance was found to contradict Title VII by stating that failure to accommodate transgender employees' preferences would constitute sex harassment. Employer Takeaways: The ruling vacated key parts of the EEOC's 2024 guidance, but its nationwide impact remains unclear. EEOC Guidance does not supersede state or local laws providing workplace protections to transgender individuals. Employers should continue to maintain policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
Background April 22, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants, Jabil, Inc. and Jabil Brandywine, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In their Motion, Defendants sought dismissal of the case in its entirety. Plaintiff, Maurice Young, began his employment with the Defendants in June 2019. Young had taken two extended leaves of absence during his employment because of the osteoarthritis in his hips; this limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk. Plaintiff’s disability insurance was exhausted in June 2022. On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff texted Jabil’s Senior Regional Human Resources Manager, Jennifer Guie, and asked to return to work part-time and on light duty. On either June 28 or 29, 2022, Guie responded that the Plaintiff needed to complete medical paperwork so that the Defendants could determine an accommodation for his return to work. The following day, Guie sent a follow-up letter to the Plaintiff which included the required paperwork. On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted the paperwork to Guie, almost two weeks past the due date. Guie did not communicate with Plaintiff further until September 12, 2022, when she requested additional documentation to support the part-time work request. The Plaintiff continued to see no movement in his accommodation requests, so he reached out to Guie on October 26, 2022 to inquire as to the status of his request. On October 28, 2022, Guie sent out a letter informing the Plaintiff that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate the requests and that they could not identify a vacant position to transfer him to that he was qualified for; the letter included a termination date of November 1, 2022. On October 29, 2022, the Plaintiff applied for an internal opening at Jabil, Inc. for an Engineering Technician I. This was a role of similar pay and requiring similar experience as the Plaintiff’s current role. The Plaintiff emailed Guie and requested he be placed in the open job as his accommodation. In response, Guie messaged the recruiter responsible for filling the position to ask that they not reject Plaintiff’s application until the position was filled because it was an internal candidate. Guie emailed the Plaintiff on November 1, 2022 that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate that request, and that the Plaintiff’s employment was officially terminated. Guie did not explain to the Plaintiff why they had diverged from company policy to either hold an official interview for internal applications or have a conversation on record about their application. The Case The Plaintiff is seeking remedy under two counts of the ADA: Count I - Failure to Accommodate and Count II – Retaliation. The Defendants argued that their employment actions were lawful and non-discriminatory. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff would be unable to do the repetitive hand movements required in his previous role as well as in the new position he had applied for. The Defendants also claimed that when reviewing Plaintiff’s medical paperwork, they had come to the conclusion that having Plaintiff on-site would be a safety hazard to himself and others. The Defendants sought dismissal of the case via their Motion for Summary Judgment, and were denied with several issues cited. The court found issue with the repetitive hand movements that the Defendants claimed were a factor in refusing to return the employee to his role or moving him to a new role. The Defendants could not clearly define the job requirements, how often the hand movements referred to were required, and if they were necessary. The judge found issue with the Defendants claims that it was a safety hazard to bring the Plaintiff back because of his disability. The employer did not conduct an individualized assessment as required under the ADA, and could not accurately explain how they came to their conclusion. The judge found that the inconsistency in process and treatment regarding the Plaintiff’s internal application could support the finding of bad faith in handling the accommodation request. Finally, the judge found that the existing evidence could lead a jury to find a casual connection to a retaliation finding. The company’s communication with the Plaintiff had been inconsistent, and testimony from HR and the employee’s direct supervisor contradicted each other on what the job requirements were. Takeaway · The processes used for employees to seek accommodation(s) need to be transparent and timely. Uncommunicated delays could be a poor process but could give credence to discrimination claims. · Job functions should be documented and kept up to date. · Rejection of accommodation(s) should be explained fully and documented extensively. Changing reasons and/or unsubstantiated decisions can be the difference between a dismissal or an expensive jury trial. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Amy Royal sat down with BusinessWest’s Joe Bednar on his podcast, BusinessTalk, to discuss the changing climate of employment law and how to best help clients navigate these changes to avoid legal trouble while building a positive and healthy workplace culture. You can listen to the episode on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or at https://businesswest.com/blog/businesstalk-with-amy-royal-ceo-the-royal-law-firm/ If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
The Local Business Community Offers Perspectives on 2025
Attorneys Amy Royal and Trevor Brice represent two Defendants, Prosegur Security USA (“Prosegur”) and its senior vice president Fernando A. Arango (“Arango”) in a lawsuit accusing Arango and Prosegur of violations of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit further accuses Arango of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and violations of trade secrets and unfair practices laws. A Connecticut federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Prosegur and Arango. The order mandates that Prosegur and Arango refrain from disclosing any confidential information obtained from Arango’s former employer, United Security Inc. (USI). The injunction requires Prosegur to certify that no USI trade secrets are stored on its systems and to preserve evidence related to the alleged misappropriation. USI alleges that Arango downloaded numerous confidential files, including sensitive business information valued at $85 million, before joining Prosegur. Prosegur and Arango deny any wrongdoing, asserting that competitive pricing, not misappropriated information, led to the acquisition of a key USI client. “Defendants were able to offer plaintiff’s client a better price, without the use of knowledge and/or alleged trade secrets, and subsequently garnered their business,” stated Prosegur. Trevor Brice of The Royal Law Firm LLP further added that, “Defendants deny liability as to the claims brought by plaintiff.” An article detailing this court decision was published in Law360, please click this link to read more.
Community
Welcome Michael!
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.
Congratulations to Krupa Kotecha on her internal advancement into the role of Chief Strategy and Advancement Officer. In this role, Krupa is in charge of strategic initiatives aimed at attorney development, operational consistency, and sustainable firm growth.
ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.
“Ability is what you’re capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” This quote from my Notre Dame football coach, Lou Holtz, has not only resonated with me through all aspects of my life, but it has guided me in coaching employees for success. Indeed, in playing for Coach Holtz in the late 1980s and winning a national championship with him, I learned quite a bit about leadership and accomplishing goals. The following takeaways that I learned as a young adult are what I have implemented into my professional life. While the objectives of leadership — driving performance, fostering engagement, and cultivating growth — remain constant, the ways in which we motivate our teams have evolved with each generation. What inspired Baby Boomers may not resonate with Millennials or Gen Z. Understanding these generational shifts is key to effective leadership today. In today’s work environment, coaching employees is not just a leadership tactic — it’s a strategic imperative. Remote work has reshaped communication, and employee expectations have shifted toward development and purpose. Coach Holtz’s quote serves as a simple but powerful framework for effective coaching: leaders must recognize ability, fuel motivation, and shape attitudes to bring out the best in their teams. Recognizing Ability: Know What Your People Can Do The first step in coaching is understanding each employee’s strengths and capabilities. This means going beyond résumés and job descriptions to truly observe how individuals think, solve problems, and interact with others. When leaders understand what their team members are capable of, they can align tasks and goals in ways that challenge without overwhelming. Coaching helps bridge the gap between raw potential and real-world performance. Inspiring Motivation: Help People See the Why Motivation is deeply personal. What drives one employee may not matter to another. Effective coaches take time to learn what inspires their team — whether it’s growth opportunities, recognition, or a sense of purpose. By connecting everyday work to larger goals and company values, leaders can unlock intrinsic motivation. Motivated employees are more likely to take initiative, push past obstacles, and grow within the organization. The Leader’s Role in Shaping Attitude Attitude determines how work gets done. A coach’s role is to cultivate a culture where positivity, resilience, and accountability thrive. This involves addressing challenges by considering setbacks as chances for learning and demonstrating emotional intelligence. Leaders who coach with empathy and encouragement set the tone for how their teams respond to pressure, change, and collaboration. From Feedback to Forward Momentum Coaching isn’t about occasional feedback — it’s about ongoing dialogue. Regular check-ins, clear communication, and actionable suggestions create an environment where employees feel supported and empowered. Effective coaching helps people take ownership of their growth, rather than waiting for direction. It turns feedback into fuel for development. Coaching in the Modern Workplace Hybrid teams, technological shifts, and generational changes have made coaching even more essential. Today’s leaders must be more intentional about building connections and offering guidance, especially when face-to-face time is limited. Virtual coaching tools can help, but the foundation remains the same: genuine curiosity, active listening, and consistent support. The Lasting Impact of a Great Coach Coaching done well builds more than just stronger employees — it builds stronger people. When leaders take the time to develop ability, ignite motivation, and nurture the right attitude, they create lasting value for individuals and the organization. As Coach Holtz wisely reminds us, performance is not just about what you can do — it’s about how and why you do it. Derek Brown is chief administrative officer at the Royal Law Firm, LLP and a retired, nine-year NFL veteran who also gives speeches on leadership and teamwork to accomplish goals. The Royal Law Firm LLP, is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Derek Brown wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
