News

Starbucks is facing a new wave of litigation, in this instance over its workplace dress code. Employees in California, Colorado, and Illinois allege that the Company’s updated policy forced them to purchase clothing items out-of-pocket without reimbursement, raising questions about employer obligations under state expense reimbursement laws. The Lawsuits On September 17, 2025, employees in Illinois and Colorado filed class-action lawsuits, while workers in California submitted complaints to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the Agency declines to act, those workers intend to pursue their own civil claims. The lawsuits are backed by the union organizing Starbucks workers, and plaintiffs argue that requiring employees to buy specific uniform items without full reimbursement violates the states’ statutes. Under laws in California, Colorado, and Illinois, employers must cover necessary business expenses, which can include uniforms or clothing mandated by a dress code. What the Dress Code Requires The revised policy, implemented in May 2025, requires employees to wear a solid black shirt (short or long sleeves, but not sleeveless or midriff-bearing) underneath their signature green apron. Pants must be khaki, black, or denim, and shoes must be in muted tones such as black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white. The policy also forbids “theatrical makeup” and visible face tattoos, prohibits nail polish and tongue piercings, and limits workers to one (1) facial piercing. In an effort to offset the change, Starbucks provided two shirts free of charge to each employee. Workers contend this was not enough, since multiple additional items were required to comply with the policy. Court documents show that some employees who failed to follow the dress code were subject to verbal warnings or sent home before starting their shifts. Worker Claims One plaintiff, Shay Mannik, a shift supervisor in Colorado, reported purchasing four black T-shirts, compliant shoes, and jeans to meet the dress code requirements. Despite these costs, Mannik claims they were never reimbursed. “It’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers already struggling with unpredictable hours and understaffed stores,” Mannik stated through attorneys. Starbucks’ Response Starbucks defended the policy as a way to “deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience to our customers and provide our partners with simpler and clearer dress code guidance.” The Company emphasized that it issued two free shirts to employees to prepare for the change. Key Considerations for Employers The Starbucks litigation underscores several important lessons for businesses:  Uniform Policies May Trigger Reimbursement Duties. Even when employers provide some clothing, state laws may still require reimbursement if employees must make additional purchases. State Laws Differ. California, Colorado, and Illinois all impose expense reimbursement obligations, but requirements vary, and enforcement can be aggressive. Here in Massachusetts, an employer does not need to pay for or reimburse an employee for general clothing, such as khakis, a black shirt, and black shoes, since these are ordinary items that can be worn outside of work. If the employer requires a specific style, brand, or logo (making the clothing a true uniform) then the employer must provide or reimburse for it and cover the cost of maintenance if special cleaning is needed. The only exception for ordinary clothing is if the cost would reduce the employee’s pay below minimum wage. Policy Rollouts Should Weigh Legal Risks. Employers introducing or revising appearance standards should carefully evaluate potential compliance costs, both financial and reputational. Takeaway The lawsuits against Starbucks will test the boundaries of state reimbursement laws and may influence how courts interpret employer obligations regarding dress codes. For companies, this case highlights the need to review policies proactively and ensure expense reimbursement practices comply with applicable state requirements. At The Royal Law Firm, we advise businesses on preventive compliance and represent employers when disputes arise. Our team’s focus on business defense ensures that policies are both operationally effective and legally sound. 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.

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.