Unemployment Solvency Fix passed by the MA House of Representatives

May 19, 2021

On May 18, 2021, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed legislation to address the overwhelming Unemployment Insurance bills employers received in April. The plan would reduce the solvency assessment rate from 9.23% to 1.12% by shifting COVID related claims into a new account to be paid down over a period of 20 years. Payment of the first-quarter UI bill would be pushed back to July 31st when the second-quarter bills will also be due. Employers who already paid their first-quarter bill would be given a tax credit for the difference.


The House’s plan does not use any of the federal relief money to offset the long-term deficits in State’s unemployment trust. So, while this plan is an important first step in relieving the short-term burden on employers, industry groups continue to urge the State to use federal relief funds to refill the unemployment trust, which was depleted by the COVID crisis.


The plan would also require employers to provide sick leave to employees who are sick with COVID or are getting vaccinated. The sick leave would be capped at 40 hours with a maximum benefit of $850. Employers would then be reimbursed through state funds.


After August 1st, the system will go back to charging new COVID related unemployment claims directly to employers.


The Senate will likely take up the bill later this week. 


If you have any questions about this topic or any other labor and employment law matters, please feel free to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

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.