U.S. Supreme Court Has Decided Not to Review Transgender Discrimination Case

December 19, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided that it will not review a case surrounding a Georgia fire chief allegedly fired for being transgender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.



The plaintiff, Rachel Mosby, had been fire chief for the City of Byron for 11 years when she was discharged in 2019.


Mosby filed a charge with the EEOC, with a five-page letter and eleven pages of exhibits. She also noted her appearance on the local news a few weeks prior to her termination, in which she talked about her experience as a transgender firefighter.


Under federal law, charges under Title VII and the ADA must be “in writing under oath or affirmation.” And EEOC regulations require that these charges “be verified,” which means “sworn to or affirmed before” a person authorized to hear oaths.


During the EEOC investigation, the City of Byron did not raise issue that the charge had not been properly verified. But, in federal court, the City did raise that issue in a motion to dismiss.

When the City raised their motion to dismiss, Mosby attempted to amend her EEOC charge retroactively, but the EEOC refused to do so because the case had now been closed.


In April of 2022, the 11th Circuit proceeded with upholding the dismissal of Mosby’s discrimination claims, rejecting Mosby’s argument that she be excused for failing to verify her charge.

Mosby then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 11th Circuit ruling.

She cited the Court’s ruling in Fort Bend v. Davis in her argument.


In Fort Bend, the Court allowed a religious discrimination case to move forward when there was a question as to whether the employee’s initial EEOC charge raised a religion-based claim, because the issue was not raised until the litigation had been ongoing for years.


Mosby urged the Court to treat her case similarly, arguing that a failure to verify her charge should not bar her discrimination claims.


The justices have declined to hear her case. This decision by the Court raises a question as to how much time must pass for an employer who did not raise an issue with the charge filing to have that defense waived.


If your business has any questions on this 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.