U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Religious Accommodation Case

January 30, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices have agreed to hear a religious accommodation case involving a former U.S. Postal Service Worker in Pennsylvania.


This case, titled Groff v. DeJoy, puts a decades-old precedent under the microscope. It calls into question the test for determining whether employers can deny religious accommodation requests made by an employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  


The standard was set by the court in the 1977 case, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, that determined that employers could deny such a request made by an employee if the religious accommodation results in “undue hardship” on the employer’s business operations.


"Undue hardship" is an act of accommodation that places substantial difficulty or expense on the employer. This legal standard is evaluated by several factors. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer is not required to make accommodations for an employee that would result in undue hardship to the employer.


If Groff v. DeJoy overturns the precedent set by Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, all manners of religious accommodations in the workplace, ranging from religious holidays to dress codes, may be affected. This case has yet to be set for oral argument. Stay tuned for updates on this matter.


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 recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.