Royal

Retaliation Suit Involving Black Lives Matter Face Masks in the Workplace

Feb 16, 2023

In the summer of 2020, three employees were terminated from Whole Foods.



The employees alleged unlawful termination for opposing Whole Foods’ discriminatory discipline of employees wearing Black Lives Matter masks at work. The three employees claimed that their termination was in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


In a January 2023 ruling, the Court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Whole Foods’ reasons for Plaintiffs’ terminations were pretextual and motivated by discriminatory intent.

“… Whole Foods has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for Plaintiffs’ terminations: specifically, Plaintiffs’ repeated violations of Whole Foods’ dress code and attendance policies.”


To survive summary judgment, Plaintiffs were required to present “. . . enough evidence to raise a jury question as to discriminatory intent.” In doing so, Plaintiffs contended that Whole Foods deviated from the normal termination procedures by involving senior executives, and that their repercussion was much harsher than that given to those similarly situated.


The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not provide the requisite evidence to raise a jury question. Given the state of the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2020, the court inferred that a senior executive’s involvement in this matter was not abnormal due to its relativity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, Plaintiffs were not capable of providing any evidence of employees similarly situated to them receiving lesser repercussions. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Whole Foods.


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.

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: