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.

 

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: