Royal

Trader Joe’s Worker Denied Age Bias Claim by 1st Circuit Court of Appeals

December 6, 2024

On November 15, 2024, the Massachusetts 1st Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for Defendant Trader Joe’s East Inc. rejecting an age bias claim of a terminated worker and simultaneously establishing a favorable rule for employers in discrimination cases.



The facts of the case involve a 77-year-old Trader Joe’s employee who was fired after purchasing beer for her 19-year-old grandson from the store where she worked. She had alleged age discrimination against Trader Joe’s, noting that several younger comparators had received written warnings instead of termination for alleged similar conduct.  


The Court disagreed with the employee, as the employee cited incomparable employee conduct. The employee named five younger employees that had only received written warnings; however, these warnings were not for buying alcohol for a minor but rather for not checking customer identification. The employee also named another younger employee that had bought alcohol for a minor and had not been terminated, but this was explained by the employer that this was due to the fact the employee did not realize the individual was underage.


The reason these employees are mentioned are as “comparators,” specifically employees younger than the 77-year-old employee who engaged in the same or similar conduct and were not terminated. The Court ruled that these comparators needed to be “apples to apples,” signalling that comparators noted in these types of suits need to be identical in conduct to the Plaintiff, and cannot be dissimilar in any substantive way. This creates a higher burden for the Plaintiff in a discrimination case to prove claims, making for a better standard for employers in discrimination cases to disprove Plaintiff’s claims. If you have questions on this ruling or other related discrimination claims, it is prudent to contact labor and employment 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.

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 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 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: