Royal

Massachusetts Federal Court Rules that a Discrimination Claim Under Title IX Can Proceed

Aug 31, 2021

Employers are familiar with Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based upon a person’s membership in certain protected categories. Employers in higher education are also familiar with Title IX, a federal law which prohibits discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance.


In a typical Title VII case, an employee will bring a claim in the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”). The MCAD requires that claims must be brought within three hundred (300) days of the alleged discriminatory act. The MCAD requirement is a relatively short limitation period, which means that employers will know relatively quickly when they are facing a discrimination claim. In a recent case, Harrington v. Lesley University, a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts ruled that an employee could proceed with a discrimination claim under Title IX. The ruling is important because it establishes two separate potential causes of action under Title VII and Title IX. It is also important because there is no procedural requirement to file a Title IX claim in the MCAD. This means that higher education employers face a longer statute of limitations, and no procedural MCAD filing requirement, in claims brought under Title IX.


This is yet another example as to why it is important for employers to periodically review and update their anti-discrimination policies.


If you have any questions regarding investigation of employee allegations, or any other aspect of employment law, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm.

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: