News
FIRM NEWS
Royal attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment for a large corporation in Hampden Superior Court. Plaintiff claimed a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and breach of good faith and fair dealing in relation to a bonus that Plaintiff alleged was owed to him. Defendants had a policy in place that made this bonus completely discretionary and only owed if the Plaintiff stayed with the Defendants through a certain date. Discretionary bonuses are outside the purview of the Massachusetts Wage Act. Defendants argued these points and the Hampden Superior Court ruled that this discretionary bonus was not under purview of the Massachusetts Wage Act and not payable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all counts in favor of the Defendants.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights in a case against our client. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant does not have a disability as defined by the relevant statutes and regulations, and that Complainant was terminated for legitimate business reasons. The RICHR agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client making a determination of no probable cause.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal on behalf of individually named Defendants at a large not-for-profit corporation in a federal court case. Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination, harassment in the workplace, and retaliation. The court agreed with our arguments that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against individual Defendants failed to state a claim, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Therefore, the case was fully dismissed in favor of our clients.
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in a case against our client, a large not-for-profit organization. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant's complaint failed to establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation and that it should be dismissed in its entirety. The MCAD agreed with our argument, and dismissed the case against our client.
WOMEN IN LABOR BLOG
On November 15, 2024 a federal judge in Texas vacated the Department of Labor’s (DOL) overtime rule from April 2024. This Rule promulgated by the DOL sought to raise the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum salary thresholds for white-collar overtime exemptions. U.S. hourly workers, unless subject to narrow exemptions, are entitled to overtime pay (over 40 hours/week) under the federal law. Many workers who are salaried are exempt from that requirement unless their salary is below a certain amount. The Plaintiffs in the current matter argued that the DOL’s 2024 increase would have rendered the Executive, Administrative and Professional (“EAP”) exemption moot, as the salary-level increase under the 2024 increase would have already been above that of the salary-based inquiry as an alternative to the EAP exemption. Effectively, the Court stated that because the salary level minimum exemption was raised higher, making more employees overtime-eligible, the DOL was eliminating consideration of the EAP exemption, exceeding the DOL’s authority granted under law. On July 1, 2024, the minimum salary level was raised, per the rule, to the equivalent of $43,888 per year. The minimum salary level was also set to increase on January 1, 2025 to $58,656 per year. This ruling invalidated the July 1, 2024 salary increase as well as the salary adjustments that had been included in the April 2024 rule by the DOL nationwide. The salary exempt status will go back to $35,568 per year, a result of the 2019 DOL rule. This ruling will most likely be appealed, stay tuned for further updates. 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.
On November 5, 2024, Massachusetts voters decisively rejected Question 5, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the minimum wage for tipped employees, aligning it with the standard minimum wage for all workers in the state. This measure proposed to gradually raise the base wage for tipped workers until it matched the state’s minimum wage, without taking into account tips. By rejecting this proposal, Massachusetts voters have chosen to retain the current two-tiered wage structure, which maintains a lower base wage for tipped employees, provided their total earnings meet or exceed the minimum wage through tips. Background on Question 5 and Its Potential Impact Question 5 was designed to phase out Massachusetts’ separate tipped minimum wage over several years. Currently, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151, Section 7 allows employers to pay a lower “service rate” to employees who regularly receive tips, which stands at $6.75 per hour. Under this law, employers are obligated to ensure that tipped employees’ total compensation, combining the service rate and tips, meets the state’s minimum wage, which is $15.00 per hour under Chapter 151, Section 1. If tips fall short, the employer must make up the difference. The proposed law under Question 5 would have gradually raised the hourly wage for tipped workers until it was equal to the general minimum wage, eliminating the current requirement that tips make up the difference. By doing so, it aimed to provide tipped employees with a stable, predictable income without relying on tips to reach the minimum wage. Legal Implications of the Rejection for Employers With Question 5 rejected, Massachusetts employers will continue to follow the current requirements for tipped employees as outlined in Chapter 151, Section 7 and Chapter 149, Section 152A. Key legal implications include: Employers must continue to ensure that tipped employees’ combined wages, including tips, meet or exceed the state minimum wage. If employees’ tips do not reach this threshold, employers are responsible for covering the difference under Chapter 151, Section 7. Under Chapter 149, Section 152A, tips are strictly the property of employees, and employers must comply with state laws on tip pooling and distribution. Although Question 5 was rejected, discussions around tipped wages and fair compensation may lead to future legislative initiatives. Employers should remain aware of potential changes to ensure ongoing compliance with evolving wage laws. For businesses operating in multiple states, Massachusetts’ approach to tipped wages differs from states that mandate a single minimum wage for all employees, such as California. Employers must ensure they meet Massachusetts’ specific tipped wage regulations alongside other state laws. Compliance Recommendations for Massachusetts Employers With the tipped minimum wage system remaining in place, employers should continue to prioritize compliance through practical measures: • Regular Wage and Tip Audits: Conducting audits of tipped employees’ earnings can help verify compliance with Chapter 151, Section 7 and prevent potential wage claims. • Clear Tip Policies: Transparent policies regarding tip handling, tip pooling, and service charges are essential under Chapter 149, Section 152A to minimize disputes and ensure compliance. • Management Training: Employers should provide regular training for managers overseeing tipped employees to ensure they understand wage and hour regulations and maintain lawful tip and wage practices. Looking Ahead Massachusetts voters’ choice to reject Question 5 retains the current wage structure for tipped employees, but ongoing discussions around fair compensation may drive future proposals. Employers should monitor legal developments closely and work with legal counsel to ensure compliance with Massachusetts wage laws as the regulatory landscape continues to evolve. If your business has any questions on this topic and would like further guidance on Massachusetts wage compliance, or any other matters please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
This week in New York City, a bill was introduced in the NY City Council that would possibly expand the “Earned Safe and Sick Time Act” to include an employee’s care for companion or service animals that need medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a physical illness, injury or health condition that needs preventative medical care. Currently, the Act covers employees to use time for care and treatment of themselves or a family member. The Act also allows employees to seek legal and social service assistance or take safety measures if an employee or family member may be a victim of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or human trafficking. The Act currently requires that employers provide their employees the following number of hours of paid leave each calendar year for the above existing reasons: 5-99 employees: up to 40 hours; 100+ employees: up to 56 hours. This amendment would expand the reasons which permit employees to use existing paid leave to take care their companion or service animals. Stay tuned! We will keep you apprised of any updates as they come out. 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.
Governor Ned Lamont announced on September 27, 2024, that the minimum wage in the State of Connecticut will increase from $15.69 to $16.35. This increase is in accordance with Public Act 19-4, signed in 2019, that connects state minimum wage to economic indicators by using the employment cost index. The employment cost index had a 4.2% increase in 2024, which attributed to the $0.66 increase in the state-wide minimum wage. It is crucial that Connecticut employers ensure that they are adhering to the minimum wage increase by the date of effectiveness, January 1, 2025. 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.
On October 1, 2024, the Department of Family Medical Leave released important information regarding adjustments to the contribution amount which will go into effect for Massachusetts Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML) on January 1, 2025. Key Takeaways: The maximum weekly benefit amount an individual can receive will increase to $1,170.64 from $1,149.90 in 2024 The contribution rate on employee wages will remain at 0.88% for employers with 25 or more eligible employees. For employers with fewer than 25 employees, the contribution rate will remain at 0.46% There is now a Live Chat feature for Leave Administrators so that individuals can speak directly with PFML agents It is extremely important for Massachusetts employers to understand these new thresholds to ensure compliance in the workplace. 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.
On October 1, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed two lawsuits for sex discrimination. The EEOC is suing for enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both employers were accused of preventing transgender employees from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity, accused of harassment on the basis of gender identity and retaliation against said employees. Key Takeaways: - It is a violation of the Civil Rights act to treat transgender employees differently than cis-gender employees - Transgender employees are guaranteed by law, the right to access restrooms in correlation with their gender identity. - The EEOC has received more than 3000 charges of alleged discrimination since 2013 and has received another 81,000 charges of retaliation. Next Steps for Employers: It is extremely important for employers to remain up to date on legislation to ensure compliance and to update existing policies as needed. 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.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Attorneys Amy Royal and Trevor Brice represent two Defendants, Prosegur Security USA (“Prosegur”) and its senior vice president Fernando A. Arango (“Arango”) in a lawsuit accusing Arango and Prosegur of violations of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit further accuses Arango of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and violations of trade secrets and unfair practices laws. A Connecticut federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Prosegur and Arango. The order mandates that Prosegur and Arango refrain from disclosing any confidential information obtained from Arango’s former employer, United Security Inc. (USI). The injunction requires Prosegur to certify that no USI trade secrets are stored on its systems and to preserve evidence related to the alleged misappropriation. USI alleges that Arango downloaded numerous confidential files, including sensitive business information valued at $85 million, before joining Prosegur. Prosegur and Arango deny any wrongdoing, asserting that competitive pricing, not misappropriated information, led to the acquisition of a key USI client. “Defendants were able to offer plaintiff’s client a better price, without the use of knowledge and/or alleged trade secrets, and subsequently garnered their business,” stated Prosegur. Trevor Brice of The Royal Law Firm LLP further added that, “Defendants deny liability as to the claims brought by plaintiff.” An article detailing this court decision was published in Law360, please click this link to read more.
Attorney Elaine Reall, Chief Legal Officer at The Royal Law Firm spoke at a national conference in Atlanta, GA on cannabis law. Elaine, along with Radhi Shah of Zuber Lawler LLP and Lucia de Vernai of Trulieve, Inc., discussed the ethics and legalities surrounding the growing cannabis industry. The National Association of Women and Minority Owned Law Firm 2024 annual meeting was held in Atlanta, GA from September 15-18. While speaking on this panel, Elaine provided insight into the product liability and consumer misrepresentation in this popular industry many are finding themselves investing in. Navigating the legalities around any industry can prove challenging, but a new industry with such rapid growth presents a unique set of questions and challenges that require guidance. Strategies for mitigating risks related to evolving state laws, the FDA’s stance, CBD uncertainties and vaping concerns were discussed along with guidelines for how business stakeholders should navigate legal risks effectively. Elaine served as city solicitor for Northampton, Massachusetts while the first dispensaries were establishing themselves in the city. Due to her municipal experience with regard to the cannabis industry, she has a unique set of qualifications and knowledge that can be used to guide cannabis industry professionals. If you would like to learn more about the cannabis industry on the employer/owner side, join Elaine on October 16 th for a Royal seminar on a regulatory overview and discussion of the impact on cannabis on workplace rules and procedures. This seminar is perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position as well as cannabis dispensary owners/managers. If you or your business have questions regarding the cannabis industry, Elaine can be reached at ereall@theroyallawfirm.com or by calling our office at (413) 586-2288.
They Need to Be Current, and Employers Need to Abide by Them
Community
Amy B. Royal is now an arbitrator with National Arbitration and Mediation (NAM)! NAM offers access to a panel of arbitrators and mediators consisting of former judges and attorneys from many fields. NAM has been named a top provider of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services in the United States for over 10 years. Along with being a NAM arbitrator, Amy is licensed to practice in the state and federal courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York. Amy can be reached at aroyal@theroyallawfirm.com or (413) 586-2288.
Amy Royal is now admitted to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Amy is admitted in the state and federal courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York.
Please join us in welcoming Attorney Krupa Kotecha to The Royal Law Firm team! Krupa M. Kotecha advises and represents clients in various labor and employment law matters, including counseling clients on sensitive matters such as non-compete agreements, equity compensation, and mergers and acquisitions. Her hands-on approach ensures that employers are equipped to manage risk effectively while fostering positive employee relations. With a commitment to anticipating potential issues, Krupa works to proactively resolve challenges before they escalate. Her practice focuses on delivering pragmatic, results-oriented solutions that help businesses navigate complex challenges and achieve their strategic goals. She brings a thoughtful, business-oriented perspective to her practice, ensuring her advice aligns with clients’ long-term objectives. Krupa holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Smith School of Business at Queen's University, graduating summa cum laude . Krupa holds a Juris Doctor from University of Toronto Faculty of Law, graduating with highest honors. Attorney Kotecha is admitted to practice law in New York. Krupa can be reached at kkotecha@theroyallawfirm.com or (413) 586-2288.
ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS
A Regulatory Minefield
Attention, Employers
A Road Map to Fairness
The Royal Law Firm LLP
Springfield, MA Office
33 Elliot Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
Phone: (413) 586-2288
Fax: (413) 586-2281
Hartford, CT Office
750 Main Street, Suite 100
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Phone: (860) 724-4248
Providence, RI Office
100 Dorrance Street, Suite 700
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Phone: (401) 283-8971
Bennington, VT Office
204 South Street
Bennington, VT 05201
Kindly direct all mailings and faxes to our Springfield, MA location.
Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with an attorney for individual advice regarding your own particular situation. This website, including each page hereof, may be considered advertising pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice.