The Royal Law Firm LLP Announces Strategic Association with Regional Boston-Area Law Firm Minasian Becker LLC

January 11, 2021

The Royal Law Firm is delighted to announce that it has established a mutual of counsel association with Minasian Becker LLC, a boutique Commercial Real Estate and Business Law Firm, as of the third quarter of 2020.


Complementing Royal’s strong business-side only litigation practice, this association will provide Royal clients with the added benefits of commercial real estate and corporate transactional work. The Minasian Becker team of attorneys has represented regional, national, and international companies and non-profit organizations with their commercial real estate and business transaction needs for over 25 years.

 

Amy Royal, Founding Partner of The Royal Law Firm, believes that the relationship with Minasian Becker will be an attractive supplement to Royal’s existing law practice of labor and employment law and other business-related litigation. “Through this strategic relationship, we can offer a broader scope of services to our corporate clients, providing to them sophisticated commercial real estate representation and counsel in a variety of corporate matters and transactions. This strategic alliance not only expands our practice areas and capabilities, but also our geographic footprint. We look forward to offering our corporate clients these added benefits and services across the Commonwealth,” Amy notes.

 

With this alignment of their practices, Royal and Minasian Becker will offer their clients locations in Arlington, Springfield, and Rockport, Massachusetts as well as in Hartford, Connecticut. Royal attorneys are admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York.

 

Both law firms are pleased to form this relationship, as they are equally business-focused, and offer the same high quality, responsive service to their clients. In addition, both firms are nationally certified as Women’s Business Enterprises and Women Owned Small Businesses, and are able to offer the benefits of diversity to their clients.


To learn more about our strategic affiliation or additional areas of practice, please contact: Amy Royal at aroyal@theroyallawfirm.com

July 9, 2025
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.