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

August 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.

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.