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.

 

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: