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.

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.