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.

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: