UPDATE: Nation’s Highest Court Hears Oral Arguments on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates

January 10, 2022
COVID-19 vaccine mandates

The United States Supreme Court held a special session on Friday to determine whether to go through with vaccine mandates issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that are set to go into effect today.

The former would require 80% of healthcare workers at CMS-covered facilities to be fully vaccinated by January 27th and 100% in compliance by March 28th. The latter calls for employers with 100 or more employees to either implement a vaccine mandate or a testing protocol in which employees undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear face masks at work.


Two dozen states have filed lawsuits against the mandates. Many business groups across the country have formed coalitions to block the OSHA mandate, which includes temporary workers, seasonal workers, and minors.


Fortunately for many employers, the highest court in the land remains skeptical. After nearly four hours of questioning and comments, many believe the Court is leaning towards splitting the difference—issuing a stay on the OSHA mandate but allowing the CMS mandate to go forward. While some justices seemed in support of both mandates, others questioned the overly broad nature of the OSHA mandate and felt the agency lacked authority to issue it.


Lamenting that the OSHA mandate represents a first for the federal government in the country’s history, Chief Justice Roberts commented that it appeared to him as more of a “broad attempt” to vaccinate all Americans.


If allowed, which seems unlikely given the Court’s reaction, employers should keep in mind the following exemptions to the OSHA mandate:


  1. Independent contractors are not covered, nor do they count toward the 100-employee threshold.
  2. Fully remote workers are largely exempt. However, if they are required to occasionally perform in-person work, they must either be fully vaccinated or obtain a negative test result within seven days of reporting to the office.
  3. Isolated workers, or employees who do not report to a workplace where co-workers or customers are present.
  4. Employees who work exclusively outdoors.


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Good Faith Engagement with ADA Accommodations Makes all the Difference

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.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

June 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.