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.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: