News / Women in Labor
Women in Labor Blog
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.
June 19, 2025
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. 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.
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.
June 5, 2025
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority by issuing guidance expanding workplace protections to transgender employees. More specifically, the Texas federal court held that former President Biden’s EEOC expansion of the definition of the word “sex” was contrary to law. Biden’s EEOC guidance that the Texas court takes issue with was updated in April 2024, and specified that actions like using incorrect pronouns, denying access to bathrooms associated with gender identity, and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with gender identity could constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII. Court's Decision: The Court sided with the State of Texas, determining that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the scope of "sex" under Title VII beyond the biological binary. The guidance was found to contradict Title VII by stating that failure to accommodate transgender employees' preferences would constitute sex harassment. Employer Takeaways: The ruling vacated key parts of the EEOC's 2024 guidance, but its nationwide impact remains unclear. EEOC Guidance does not supersede state or local laws providing workplace protections to transgender individuals. Employers should continue to maintain policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. 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.
May 22, 2025
Background April 22, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants, Jabil, Inc. and Jabil Brandywine, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In their Motion, Defendants sought dismissal of the case in its entirety. Plaintiff, Maurice Young, began his employment with the Defendants in June 2019. Young had taken two extended leaves of absence during his employment because of the osteoarthritis in his hips; this limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk. Plaintiff’s disability insurance was exhausted in June 2022. On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff texted Jabil’s Senior Regional Human Resources Manager, Jennifer Guie, and asked to return to work part-time and on light duty. On either June 28 or 29, 2022, Guie responded that the Plaintiff needed to complete medical paperwork so that the Defendants could determine an accommodation for his return to work. The following day, Guie sent a follow-up letter to the Plaintiff which included the required paperwork. On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted the paperwork to Guie, almost two weeks past the due date. Guie did not communicate with Plaintiff further until September 12, 2022, when she requested additional documentation to support the part-time work request. The Plaintiff continued to see no movement in his accommodation requests, so he reached out to Guie on October 26, 2022 to inquire as to the status of his request. On October 28, 2022, Guie sent out a letter informing the Plaintiff that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate the requests and that they could not identify a vacant position to transfer him to that he was qualified for; the letter included a termination date of November 1, 2022. On October 29, 2022, the Plaintiff applied for an internal opening at Jabil, Inc. for an Engineering Technician I. This was a role of similar pay and requiring similar experience as the Plaintiff’s current role. The Plaintiff emailed Guie and requested he be placed in the open job as his accommodation. In response, Guie messaged the recruiter responsible for filling the position to ask that they not reject Plaintiff’s application until the position was filled because it was an internal candidate. Guie emailed the Plaintiff on November 1, 2022 that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate that request, and that the Plaintiff’s employment was officially terminated. Guie did not explain to the Plaintiff why they had diverged from company policy to either hold an official interview for internal applications or have a conversation on record about their application. The Case The Plaintiff is seeking remedy under two counts of the ADA: Count I - Failure to Accommodate and Count II – Retaliation. The Defendants argued that their employment actions were lawful and non-discriminatory. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff would be unable to do the repetitive hand movements required in his previous role as well as in the new position he had applied for. The Defendants also claimed that when reviewing Plaintiff’s medical paperwork, they had come to the conclusion that having Plaintiff on-site would be a safety hazard to himself and others. The Defendants sought dismissal of the case via their Motion for Summary Judgment, and were denied with several issues cited. The court found issue with the repetitive hand movements that the Defendants claimed were a factor in refusing to return the employee to his role or moving him to a new role. The Defendants could not clearly define the job requirements, how often the hand movements referred to were required, and if they were necessary. The judge found issue with the Defendants claims that it was a safety hazard to bring the Plaintiff back because of his disability. The employer did not conduct an individualized assessment as required under the ADA, and could not accurately explain how they came to their conclusion. The judge found that the inconsistency in process and treatment regarding the Plaintiff’s internal application could support the finding of bad faith in handling the accommodation request. Finally, the judge found that the existing evidence could lead a jury to find a casual connection to a retaliation finding. The company’s communication with the Plaintiff had been inconsistent, and testimony from HR and the employee’s direct supervisor contradicted each other on what the job requirements were. Takeaway · The processes used for employees to seek accommodation(s) need to be transparent and timely. Uncommunicated delays could be a poor process but could give credence to discrimination claims. · Job functions should be documented and kept up to date. · Rejection of accommodation(s) should be explained fully and documented extensively. Changing reasons and/or unsubstantiated decisions can be the difference between a dismissal or an expensive jury trial. 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.
April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. 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.
Women in Labor Blog
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.
June 19, 2025
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. 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.
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.
June 5, 2025
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority by issuing guidance expanding workplace protections to transgender employees. More specifically, the Texas federal court held that former President Biden’s EEOC expansion of the definition of the word “sex” was contrary to law. Biden’s EEOC guidance that the Texas court takes issue with was updated in April 2024, and specified that actions like using incorrect pronouns, denying access to bathrooms associated with gender identity, and enforcing dress codes inconsistent with gender identity could constitute unlawful harassment under Title VII. Court's Decision: The Court sided with the State of Texas, determining that the EEOC exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the scope of "sex" under Title VII beyond the biological binary. The guidance was found to contradict Title VII by stating that failure to accommodate transgender employees' preferences would constitute sex harassment. Employer Takeaways: The ruling vacated key parts of the EEOC's 2024 guidance, but its nationwide impact remains unclear. EEOC Guidance does not supersede state or local laws providing workplace protections to transgender individuals. Employers should continue to maintain policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, including those related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. 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.
May 22, 2025
Background April 22, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants, Jabil, Inc. and Jabil Brandywine, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In their Motion, Defendants sought dismissal of the case in its entirety. Plaintiff, Maurice Young, began his employment with the Defendants in June 2019. Young had taken two extended leaves of absence during his employment because of the osteoarthritis in his hips; this limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk. Plaintiff’s disability insurance was exhausted in June 2022. On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff texted Jabil’s Senior Regional Human Resources Manager, Jennifer Guie, and asked to return to work part-time and on light duty. On either June 28 or 29, 2022, Guie responded that the Plaintiff needed to complete medical paperwork so that the Defendants could determine an accommodation for his return to work. The following day, Guie sent a follow-up letter to the Plaintiff which included the required paperwork. On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted the paperwork to Guie, almost two weeks past the due date. Guie did not communicate with Plaintiff further until September 12, 2022, when she requested additional documentation to support the part-time work request. The Plaintiff continued to see no movement in his accommodation requests, so he reached out to Guie on October 26, 2022 to inquire as to the status of his request. On October 28, 2022, Guie sent out a letter informing the Plaintiff that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate the requests and that they could not identify a vacant position to transfer him to that he was qualified for; the letter included a termination date of November 1, 2022. On October 29, 2022, the Plaintiff applied for an internal opening at Jabil, Inc. for an Engineering Technician I. This was a role of similar pay and requiring similar experience as the Plaintiff’s current role. The Plaintiff emailed Guie and requested he be placed in the open job as his accommodation. In response, Guie messaged the recruiter responsible for filling the position to ask that they not reject Plaintiff’s application until the position was filled because it was an internal candidate. Guie emailed the Plaintiff on November 1, 2022 that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate that request, and that the Plaintiff’s employment was officially terminated. Guie did not explain to the Plaintiff why they had diverged from company policy to either hold an official interview for internal applications or have a conversation on record about their application. The Case The Plaintiff is seeking remedy under two counts of the ADA: Count I - Failure to Accommodate and Count II – Retaliation. The Defendants argued that their employment actions were lawful and non-discriminatory. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff would be unable to do the repetitive hand movements required in his previous role as well as in the new position he had applied for. The Defendants also claimed that when reviewing Plaintiff’s medical paperwork, they had come to the conclusion that having Plaintiff on-site would be a safety hazard to himself and others. The Defendants sought dismissal of the case via their Motion for Summary Judgment, and were denied with several issues cited. The court found issue with the repetitive hand movements that the Defendants claimed were a factor in refusing to return the employee to his role or moving him to a new role. The Defendants could not clearly define the job requirements, how often the hand movements referred to were required, and if they were necessary. The judge found issue with the Defendants claims that it was a safety hazard to bring the Plaintiff back because of his disability. The employer did not conduct an individualized assessment as required under the ADA, and could not accurately explain how they came to their conclusion. The judge found that the inconsistency in process and treatment regarding the Plaintiff’s internal application could support the finding of bad faith in handling the accommodation request. Finally, the judge found that the existing evidence could lead a jury to find a casual connection to a retaliation finding. The company’s communication with the Plaintiff had been inconsistent, and testimony from HR and the employee’s direct supervisor contradicted each other on what the job requirements were. Takeaway · The processes used for employees to seek accommodation(s) need to be transparent and timely. Uncommunicated delays could be a poor process but could give credence to discrimination claims. · Job functions should be documented and kept up to date. · Rejection of accommodation(s) should be explained fully and documented extensively. Changing reasons and/or unsubstantiated decisions can be the difference between a dismissal or an expensive jury trial. 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.
April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. 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.
April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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.
April 9, 2025
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, a school district, in a claim brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court agreed that the Plaintiff, a teacher, did not qualify for accommodation under the ADA because she could perform her job fully without the accommodation. It was agreed upon that her job functions could be performed but under “great duress and harm.” The Plaintiff appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court disagreed with the USDC NY decision, stating that “an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation.” For Employers This ruling reminds us that the crux of the ADA is if the accommodation is reasonable, aimed at mitigating disability related limitations, and does not place an undue burden on the employer, the employer is expected to fulfill that accommodation. Every request for accommodation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. A broad metric should not be how a business decides if it should allow any requests for ADA accommodation(s). The attorneys at The Royal Law Firm are dedicated to helping employers navigate ADA accommodations and interpretations in their day-to-day practice and handbooks. 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.
April 4, 2025
Last week, we wrote about the guidance issued by the EEOC regarding actions or policies that could be considered illegal DEI. (click here to read our post!) There has been some confusion regarding the guidance issued by the EEOC in its application. These additional factors feed into the uncertainty surrounding DEI practices: A federal court issued a limited temporary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) attempting to enforce “illegal DEI” measures. A partially federally funded nonprofit focused on supporting women in skilled trades immediately felt the effect of EO 14151 and EO 14173 when a partner canceled its subcontract, citing being in violation of both executive orders. “The Court concludes that the [executive order] is likely a coercive threat…selectively targeting speech regarding DEI, DEIA, and equity based on a belief that such programs are ‘immoral,’ i.e., disfavored by the government.” This injunction is not widespread, it applies to the nonprofit challenging the order and any grantee through which it holds a subcontract. However, the court additionally barred the DOL from enforcing the requirement that grantees certify they don’t operate any DEI-promoting programs—even outside of their grants. This applies nationwide to all DOL grantees. Massachusetts attorneys have told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly they are less concerned about the guidance issued on two counts: 1) the EEOC and the executive orders are unable to override established law and precedent. While the EEOC could seek investigation, which would bring undue costs to employers, it would be unlikely to lead to further legal action. 2) The guidance is much the same as it was before, but with more of a focus on practices during an employee’s term of employment. The EEOC has historically focused on hiring and firing practices. The EEOC’s acting chair publicly requested information from 20 law firms regarding their DEI-related employment practices going back to 2015. Andrea Lucas, EEOC head, stated in her letters to the 20 firms that the investigation is based on public statements the firms previously made regarding their diverse hiring practices. Take Aways Seek review of handbooks and company policies to ensure compliance before an investigation could take place. If you accept federal funding, do not expand any DEI programs until the guidelines are solidly established between the courts and the administration. Try to avoid a knee jerk reaction of immediately cutting all DEI programs as they may remain legal. Please reach out to The Royal Law Firm to help you navigate this ever-changing terrain. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Benjamin Franklin 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.
April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process . If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal 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.
