Royal

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.

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: