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 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.
The Royal Law Firm attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal on behalf of our client. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on disability. Royal attorneys argued that Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, and that Complainant had engaged in misconduct warranting her termination. Royal attorneys further argued that Complainant did not demonstrate that she suffered from a disability, and that she could not perform the essential functions of her position. The EEOC agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for their small local client. The Complainants alleged discrimination on the basis of race and color. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainants contacted Respondent for an estimate for services to be performed; Respondent later turned down the work due to lack of time, not race or color, and offered to perform the work the following season. The MCAD agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of probable cause.
WOMEN IN LABOR BLOG
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.
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. 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.
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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
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.
Amy Royal is now admitted to the Texas State Bar! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Amy is admitted in the state and federal courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Arizona, and Texas.
ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS
“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?
A Regulatory Minefield
