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.

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  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.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: