Royal

Bartenders and Personnel at Music Festival Allege Violation of FLSA

May 24, 2023

Fifteen people employed to work as bartenders and barbacks sued the company operating a music festival in September 2022. The employees alleged that the company failed to pay minimum wage, overtime, and tips required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Virginia’s Wage Payment Act and Minimum Wage Act.


The fifteen employees who filed suit asserted their claims on behalf of nearly fifty other tipped employees. The employees (Plaintiffs) alleged that the company pooled all tips together and used a large portion of the tips to pay non-tip managerial employees. Moreover, the employees alleged that they worked 10-14 hours each day of the music festival and were only paid $5 per hour.



The company operating the music festival argued that class certification was not warranted because the nearly fifty employees did not prove they were all similarly situated. And even if they did, the case would be unmanageable because the court would have to inquire about each claimant’s experience working at the festivals.


The U.S. District Judge in this matter disagreed. The judge stated in his recent opinion that, “At bottom, Plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing suffices at this stage of the case to establish that Plaintiffs and the other proposed collective action members are ‘similarly situated’ for purposes of the FLSA, and further, that no individualized inquiry would render inefficient their proceeding as a collective action,” he wrote. “Plaintiffs have established their entitlement to conditional certification of their FLSA collective action.”


The standard in this scenario requires, “only minimal evidence, such as factual evidence by affidavits or other means,” Here, the judge held that the employees had met that burden.


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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: