The EEOC’s Latest Action Plan Likely to Increase Charges Against Employers

May 4, 2022

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has released its Equity Action Plan in response to President Biden’s Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” This action plan sets forth the following initiatives the EEOC will take:


First, the EEOC intends to do a variety of things which will make it easier for workers to file charges, such as: streamlining the process to shorten wait times for intake appointments, increase staffing at its national call center, make its online intake forms and public portal available in Spanish and potentially other languages, and increasing the number of outreach events in rural areas. In addition, the EEOC will update its website to make the most important and popular materials available in other languages beyond just English and Spanish. It will also make its materials more accessible to low-literacy and disabled individuals through the use of alternative formats, including print and radio, making it more likely for individuals to file EEOC charges against their employers.  


In addition, the EEOC will focus on efforts to increase equity in recruitment and hiring and consider updating categories on the EEO-1 form, including further breakdowns on ethnicity, as well as potentially adding sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability status. All private sector employers with 100 or more employees, and federal contractors with 50 or more employees meeting certain criteria, are required to submit this form as it includes pertinent demographic workforce data, including data by race/ethnicity, sex and job categories.


Employers should know that while these efforts will likely result in an increase in charge activity, it does not mean these charges will be successful. It is always best for employers to consult legal counsel when an employee files charges, and never has that been more important than now as the EEOC executes their action plan.


If you have any questions on the EEOC’s Equity Action Plan, or any other labor and employment law matters, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm; (413) 586-2288. We know business matters!

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.