Royal

U.S. Supreme Court Has Decided Not to Review Transgender Discrimination Case

December 19, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided that it will not review a case surrounding a Georgia fire chief allegedly fired for being transgender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.



The plaintiff, Rachel Mosby, had been fire chief for the City of Byron for 11 years when she was discharged in 2019.


Mosby filed a charge with the EEOC, with a five-page letter and eleven pages of exhibits. She also noted her appearance on the local news a few weeks prior to her termination, in which she talked about her experience as a transgender firefighter.


Under federal law, charges under Title VII and the ADA must be “in writing under oath or affirmation.” And EEOC regulations require that these charges “be verified,” which means “sworn to or affirmed before” a person authorized to hear oaths.


During the EEOC investigation, the City of Byron did not raise issue that the charge had not been properly verified. But, in federal court, the City did raise that issue in a motion to dismiss.

When the City raised their motion to dismiss, Mosby attempted to amend her EEOC charge retroactively, but the EEOC refused to do so because the case had now been closed.


In April of 2022, the 11th Circuit proceeded with upholding the dismissal of Mosby’s discrimination claims, rejecting Mosby’s argument that she be excused for failing to verify her charge.

Mosby then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 11th Circuit ruling.

She cited the Court’s ruling in Fort Bend v. Davis in her argument.


In Fort Bend, the Court allowed a religious discrimination case to move forward when there was a question as to whether the employee’s initial EEOC charge raised a religion-based claim, because the issue was not raised until the litigation had been ongoing for years.


Mosby urged the Court to treat her case similarly, arguing that a failure to verify her charge should not bar her discrimination claims.


The justices have declined to hear her case. This decision by the Court raises a question as to how much time must pass for an employer who did not raise an issue with the charge filing to have that defense waived.


If your business has any questions on this 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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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: