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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

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.