News

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, a school district, in a claim brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court agreed that the Plaintiff, a teacher, did not qualify for accommodation under the ADA because she could perform her job fully without the accommodation. It was agreed upon that her job functions could be performed but under “great duress and harm.” The Plaintiff appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court disagreed with the USDC NY decision, stating that “an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation.” For Employers This ruling reminds us that the crux of the ADA is if the accommodation is reasonable, aimed at mitigating disability related limitations, and does not place an undue burden on the employer, the employer is expected to fulfill that accommodation. Every request for accommodation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. A broad metric should not be how a business decides if it should allow any requests for ADA accommodation(s). The attorneys at The Royal Law Firm are dedicated to helping employers navigate ADA accommodations and interpretations in their day-to-day practice and handbooks. 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.

Last week, we wrote about the guidance issued by the EEOC regarding actions or policies that could be considered illegal DEI. (click here to read our post!) There has been some confusion regarding the guidance issued by the EEOC in its application. These additional factors feed into the uncertainty surrounding DEI practices: A federal court issued a limited temporary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) attempting to enforce “illegal DEI” measures. A partially federally funded nonprofit focused on supporting women in skilled trades immediately felt the effect of EO 14151 and EO 14173 when a partner canceled its subcontract, citing being in violation of both executive orders. “The Court concludes that the [executive order] is likely a coercive threat…selectively targeting speech regarding DEI, DEIA, and equity based on a belief that such programs are ‘immoral,’ i.e., disfavored by the government.”​ This injunction is not widespread, it applies to the nonprofit challenging the order and any grantee through which it holds a subcontract. However, the court additionally barred the DOL from enforcing the requirement that grantees certify they don’t operate any DEI-promoting programs—even outside of their grants. This applies nationwide to all DOL grantees.  Massachusetts attorneys have told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly they are less concerned about the guidance issued on two counts: 1) the EEOC and the executive orders are unable to override established law and precedent. While the EEOC could seek investigation, which would bring undue costs to employers, it would be unlikely to lead to further legal action. 2) The guidance is much the same as it was before, but with more of a focus on practices during an employee’s term of employment. The EEOC has historically focused on hiring and firing practices. The EEOC’s acting chair publicly requested information from 20 law firms regarding their DEI-related employment practices going back to 2015. Andrea Lucas, EEOC head, stated in her letters to the 20 firms that the investigation is based on public statements the firms previously made regarding their diverse hiring practices. Take Aways Seek review of handbooks and company policies to ensure compliance before an investigation could take place. If you accept federal funding, do not expand any DEI programs until the guidelines are solidly established between the courts and the administration. Try to avoid a knee jerk reaction of immediately cutting all DEI programs as they may remain legal. Please reach out to The Royal Law Firm to help you navigate this ever-changing terrain. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Benjamin Franklin 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.

A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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 EEOC has issued guidance on what constitutes illegal DEI and its application to private employers. Employees alleging DEI-based discrimination are required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC to prove probable cause and be awarded a Notice of Right to Sue to pursue a suit in Federal Court under Title VII. Illegal DEI practices are when an employer or other covered entity takes any employment action influenced- in whole or in part- by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. The guidance is very clear that protected characteristics cannot have any bearing on employment action; it doesn’t matter if it’s the only factor, deciding factor, or one of many equally weighed factors. Any consideration toward a protected characteristic is illegal. Client and customer requests are not an exception unless there is a bona fide occupational qualification “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise” in regard to religion, sex, or national origin. The limited exception of the bona fide occupational qualification is not extended to race or color. The EEOC has stated that, “depending on the facts, an employee may be able to plausibly allege or prove that a diversity or other DEI-related training created a hostile work environment by pleading or showing that the training was discriminatory in content, application, or context.” It is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under this new guidance. The attorneys at The Royal Law Firm are committed to helping employers navigate EEOC complaints and investigations. 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.

A recent Massachusetts ruling regarding unpaid bonuses is extremely important for employers in light of the wave of litigation involving the Massachusetts Wage Act. In this case, Plaintiff brought claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for unpaid bonuses under ERISA, alleging that her former employer deprived her of guaranteed bonus payments. This case is of particular interest as it is rare for a court to consider the substantive nature of a case during the dismissal stage. However, in this case, the judge ruled on the substantive nature of the wages Plaintiff claimed, outside of the purview of a typical motion to dismiss decision. The court decided that the compensation of a bonus under ERISA is “discretionary or contingent upon the employee remaining with the company [and] is not considered a wage subject to the wage act” and dismissed the claims of unpaid wages, only allowing the retaliation claims to proceed. The judge found that bonuses did not constitute wages as they are not earned. This decision can help to decrease employers’ concerns about wage claims, particularly those related to bonuses and deferred compensation.  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.