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.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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.