Trader Joe’s Worker Denied Age Bias Claim by 1st Circuit Court of Appeals

December 6, 2024

On November 15, 2024, the Massachusetts 1st Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Defendant Trader Joe’s East Inc. rejecting an age bias claim of a terminated worker and simultaneously establishing a favorable rule for employers in discrimination cases.



The facts of the case involve a 77-year-old Trader Joe’s employee who was fired after purchasing beer for her 19-year-old grandson from the store where she worked. She had alleged age discrimination against Trader Joe’s, noting that several younger comparators had received written warnings instead of termination for alleged similar conduct.  


The Court disagreed with the employee, as the employee cited incomparable employee conduct. The employee named five younger employees that had only received written warnings; however, these warnings were not for buying alcohol for a minor but rather for not checking customer identification. The employee also named another younger employee that had bought alcohol for a minor and had not been terminated, but this was explained by the employer that this was due to the fact the employee did not realize the individual was underage.


The reason these employees are mentioned are as “comparators,” specifically employees younger than the 77-year-old employee who engaged in the same or similar conduct and were not terminated. The Court ruled that these comparators needed to be “apples to apples,” signalling that comparators noted in these types of suits need to be identical in conduct to the Plaintiff, and cannot be dissimilar in any substantive way. This creates a higher burden for the Plaintiff in a discrimination case to prove claims, making for a better standard for employers in discrimination cases to disprove Plaintiff’s claims. If you have questions on this ruling or other related discrimination claims, it is prudent to contact labor and employment counsel.


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.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
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.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
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.