Royal

Businesses who are Non-Compliant with Laws are at Risk of the Proverbial Set-Up

Oct 20, 2022

On October 5, 2022, the First Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision, finding that a disabled wheelchair-bound Florida woman, Deborah Laufer, and self-proclaimed ADA “tester” who from her computer in Florida hunts websites searching for ADA compliance violators has standing, allowing her to bring suit against a hotel on the southern coast of Maine, Acheson Hotels, LLC because it failed to identify handicapped accessible rooms. Laufer has filed hundreds of other ADA-related suits in federal courts from coast to coast, and standing was held regardless of the fact that Laufer had no real intention of booking a room. 


Laufer leaned heavily on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) in which a Black plaintiff asked Havens Realty on multiple occasions whether it had any units for rent. She was told “no,” whereas when a White plaintiff asked the same question, they were told “yes.”  There the Court held there was an injury to the Black plaintiff.


Federal regulations clearly provide that hotel reservation portals must provide enough detail to allow individuals with disabilities to know what services they can enjoy, according to 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which Laufer alleges Acheson’s portals did not do. When a public accommodation violates the ADA and discriminates against a disabled person, the ADA and the regulations promulgated under it permit private individuals to bring enforcement actions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.501.


When Laufer first visited Acheson’s website, she found that: it didn’t identify accessible rooms; didn’t provide an option for booking such an accessible room; and that it didn’t give her sufficient information to determine whether it was accessible to her. She also faced the same dearth of information when she visited the hotel’s reservation service using thirteen other third-party websites including: Expedia.com; Hotels.com; and Booking.com.


The moral of this story is to check whether your business, websites and all social media comply with the most up-to-date ADA regulations.


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

ALERT: EEOC Releases Workplace Guidance to Prevent Harassment

01 May, 2024
On April 29 th , 2024, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized their guidance in harassment in the workplace after receiving and responding to nearly 38,000 public comments on the proposed guidance released on October 2, 2023. The renewed guidance provides numerous clarifying hypotheticals, and addresses more recent issues including protections for LGBTIQA+ employees and remote work. Of note, the EEOC clarified the scope of sex discrimination and harassment, stating that federal protections under Title VII extend to LGBTIQA+ employees. Specifically, the EEOC made clear that the scope of harassment extends to repeatedly and intentionally misgendering employees or denying access to bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity. Further, this guidance reminds employers that discrimination and harassment based on “sex” includes harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, which include employees’ decisions related to contraception and abortion. Several public comments suggested that these guidelines infringed on free speech and religious rights. The EEOC did not directly address these concerns, instead stating that free speech and religious rights issues are fact-specific and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Further, the EEOC updated guidance related to the remote work environment. The EEOC clarified that conduct in a virtual work environment, including electronic communications using private phones, computers, or social media accounts can contribute to a hostile work environment if they impact the workplace. The EEOC also clarified that conduct occurring outside of the workplace, including on social media, which does not target the employer or its employees and is not brought into the workplace generally will not contribute to a hostile work environment. Finally, the EEOC updated its Anti-Harassment Policy Requirements, stating that an anti-harassment and discrimination policy should be widely disseminated to employees, in a manner that is understandable by all employees and includes i) a definition of prohibited conduct, ii) a requirement that supervisors report harassment, iii) multiple avenues for reporting harassment, iv) a statement that clearly identifies accessible points of contact for reporting purposes, and v) an explanation of the complaint process, including adequate anti-retaliation and confidentiality protections, and prompt and effective investigation and corrective action. You can read more about the EEOC's ruling on their website by clicking here . 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.

Non-Compete Agreements Are in Jeopardy

26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.
Share by: