The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, a school district, in a claim brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court agreed that the Plaintiff, a teacher, did not qualify for accommodation under the ADA because she could perform her job fully without the accommodation. It was agreed upon that her job functions could be performed but under “great duress and harm.” The Plaintiff appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court disagreed with the USDC NY decision, stating that “an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation.” For Employers This ruling reminds us that the crux of the ADA is if the accommodation is reasonable, aimed at mitigating disability related limitations, and does not place an undue burden on the employer, the employer is expected to fulfill that accommodation. Every request for accommodation should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. A broad metric should not be how a business decides if it should allow any requests for ADA accommodation(s). The attorneys at The Royal Law Firm are dedicated to helping employers navigate ADA accommodations and interpretations in their day-to-day practice and handbooks. 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.

Last week, we wrote about the guidance issued by the EEOC regarding actions or policies that could be considered illegal DEI. (click here to read our post!) There has been some confusion regarding the guidance issued by the EEOC in its application. These additional factors feed into the uncertainty surrounding DEI practices: A federal court issued a limited temporary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) attempting to enforce “illegal DEI” measures. A partially federally funded nonprofit focused on supporting women in skilled trades immediately felt the effect of EO 14151 and EO 14173 when a partner canceled its subcontract, citing being in violation of both executive orders. “The Court concludes that the [executive order] is likely a coercive threat…selectively targeting speech regarding DEI, DEIA, and equity based on a belief that such programs are ‘immoral,’ i.e., disfavored by the government.”​ This injunction is not widespread, it applies to the nonprofit challenging the order and any grantee through which it holds a subcontract. However, the court additionally barred the DOL from enforcing the requirement that grantees certify they don’t operate any DEI-promoting programs—even outside of their grants. This applies nationwide to all DOL grantees.  Massachusetts attorneys have told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly they are less concerned about the guidance issued on two counts: 1) the EEOC and the executive orders are unable to override established law and precedent. While the EEOC could seek investigation, which would bring undue costs to employers, it would be unlikely to lead to further legal action. 2) The guidance is much the same as it was before, but with more of a focus on practices during an employee’s term of employment. The EEOC has historically focused on hiring and firing practices. The EEOC’s acting chair publicly requested information from 20 law firms regarding their DEI-related employment practices going back to 2015. Andrea Lucas, EEOC head, stated in her letters to the 20 firms that the investigation is based on public statements the firms previously made regarding their diverse hiring practices. Take Aways Seek review of handbooks and company policies to ensure compliance before an investigation could take place. If you accept federal funding, do not expand any DEI programs until the guidelines are solidly established between the courts and the administration. Try to avoid a knee jerk reaction of immediately cutting all DEI programs as they may remain legal. Please reach out to The Royal Law Firm to help you navigate this ever-changing terrain. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Benjamin Franklin 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.

A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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 EEOC has issued guidance on what constitutes illegal DEI and its application to private employers. Employees alleging DEI-based discrimination are required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC to prove probable cause and be awarded a Notice of Right to Sue to pursue a suit in Federal Court under Title VII. Illegal DEI practices are when an employer or other covered entity takes any employment action influenced- in whole or in part- by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. The guidance is very clear that protected characteristics cannot have any bearing on employment action; it doesn’t matter if it’s the only factor, deciding factor, or one of many equally weighed factors. Any consideration toward a protected characteristic is illegal. Client and customer requests are not an exception unless there is a bona fide occupational qualification “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise” in regard to religion, sex, or national origin. The limited exception of the bona fide occupational qualification is not extended to race or color. The EEOC has stated that, “depending on the facts, an employee may be able to plausibly allege or prove that a diversity or other DEI-related training created a hostile work environment by pleading or showing that the training was discriminatory in content, application, or context.” It is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under this new guidance. The attorneys at The Royal Law Firm are committed to helping employers navigate EEOC complaints and investigations. 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.

A recent Massachusetts ruling regarding unpaid bonuses is extremely important for employers in light of the wave of litigation involving the Massachusetts Wage Act. In this case, Plaintiff brought claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act for unpaid bonuses under ERISA, alleging that her former employer deprived her of guaranteed bonus payments. This case is of particular interest as it is rare for a court to consider the substantive nature of a case during the dismissal stage. However, in this case, the judge ruled on the substantive nature of the wages Plaintiff claimed, outside of the purview of a typical motion to dismiss decision. The court decided that the compensation of a bonus under ERISA is “discretionary or contingent upon the employee remaining with the company [and] is not considered a wage subject to the wage act” and dismissed the claims of unpaid wages, only allowing the retaliation claims to proceed. The judge found that bonuses did not constitute wages as they are not earned. This decision can help to decrease employers’ concerns about wage claims, particularly those related to bonuses and deferred compensation.  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.

Recent executive orders issued by the executive branch have raised questions for many employers, especially relating to DEI policies. While it was initially interpreted that the executive orders regarding the presence of DEI policies only applied to federal agencies and companies that receive federal funds, a recent investigation by the Department of Education has raised questions about whether privately funded organizations and companies could face prosecution.  In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (as known as MIAA), a program not directly funded by the federal government, is being investigated by the Department of Education for an alleged violation of Title IX in allowing transgender individuals to participate in women’s sports. While MIAA’s policy is loosely related to DEI protocols, this investigation seems to declare that support of DEI-type programs and policies by private companies can be prosecuted akin to this investigation. It is investigations such as these that has led to a movement called “rainbow-hushing,” in which companies drop or quietly rebrand their diversity, equity and inclusion programs to avoid prosecution. While confusion and contradictions between anti-discrimination laws and the new wave of executive orders issued by the executive branch remain abound, it is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under the new executive orders, akin to MIAA. 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.

On February 12, 2025, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) issued guidance to remind employers that employment discrimination laws apply to the collection and use of information from wearable technology, which includes smart watches and rings, environmental or proximity sensors, smart helmets or glasses, exoskeletons, GPS devices or any other device worn on the body embedded with sensors to track bodily movements, collect biometric information and/or track an employee’s location. Regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the EEOC reminds employers that information collected from wearable technology can constitute a prohibited medical examination or disability-related inquiry. These examinations and inquiries are prohibited under the ADA unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. For example, employers may be conducting a medical examination if information is collected about an employee’s physical or mental condition from the wearable technology. Further, employers may be engaging prohibited disability-related inquiry if they are to direct employees to provide information in connection with the use of wearable technology. If this data is collected by employers, the EEOC reminds employers that this data must be maintained in separate medical files and treated as confidential medical information. The EEOC also notes that employers may need to make exceptions or provide alternatives to wearable technology policies as a reasonable accommodation under Title VII (as a religious accommodation), the ADA (disability) or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions), even if the employer complies with the ADA’s limitations. Further, the EEOC informs employers that the improper use of information collected from wearable technology could result in unlawful discrimination. For example, an employer cannot use information collected from wearable technology to infer that an employee is pregnant and terminate the employee and/or place the employee on unpaid leave. As way of further example, tracking an employee who takes a parent to a dialysis center and then inquiring as to the purpose of the visit would be a discriminatory practice that elicits genetic information about the employee’s family medical history. Employers should be aware of the limitations of the collection of data with wearable technology in light of the EEOC’s guidance and must review policies on wearable technologies to ensure compliance with the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws. If an employer has a concern or question related to the use or collection of data in relation to wearable devices, employers should seek counsel to avoid running afoul of the EEOC’s update guidance. 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.

Since 2019, New York City law has stated that employers are required to implement and distribute to all employees upon hire a written lactation accommodation policy which includes the right to request a lactation room. Amendments to this law have been made and will go into effect on May 11, 2025. The changes include: New Posting Requirements- Employers must make the policy “readily available” by physically posting the policy in an area accessible to employees and available electronically in the employer’s intranet if existing. Policy Revisions- Employers must include a statement that the employer will provide 30 minutes of paid break time and shall further permit an employee to use existing break time or mealtime if exceeding 30 minutes. This is in accordance with the newly enacted paid lactation break law. New Distribution Requirement- Requirement changes wording from “upon hire” to “at the commencement of employment” clarifying that employers are not required to provide the policy to employees before their first day of work. Employer Takeaways: Prepare to comply with updating physical and electronic posting requirements Revise lactation room accommodation policies to include required language Review existing breaktime policies to ensure compliance with paid lactation break requirements 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.

Recent executive orders, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring the Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity signed by President Donald Trump, on January 20th and 21st, have caused a multitude of questions regarding anti-discriminatory policies in the workplace and how employers are expected to properly comply. Many of the questions raised are in relation to the fact that these executive orders (EOs) directly contradict federal anti-discrimination laws. How can employers comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act while also complying with executive orders prohibiting federal contractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, and national origin in ways that violate the nation’s civil rights laws? The verbiage of these recent executive orders has caused nationwide confusion. This confusion could land both private sector and federal employers in hot water if they utilize affirmative action or Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) Programs. As a result, countless employers across the nation are finding themselves with more questions than answers on how to properly comply. Royal Attorneys are here to help employers by providing guidance on what we know so far, what is still unanswered/ unclear how to proceed and action/policies to implement or revise for proper compliance in the meantime while we await clarification. What We Know: It is important to note that Executive Orders do not override legislation and anti-discrimination laws are still fully in effect. This means that the EOs did not affect the status of laws enacted by Congress which prohibits discrimination including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, the Pregnancy Fairness Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. With these EOs, application and interpretations of these laws by many federal agencies may change. It is critical with these changes and shifts in agency interpretation that employers review handbooks and policies. An example that displays this change in interpretation and application can be found within the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC has taken down from its website compliance sections regarding Guidance on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination for A pending review. The EEOC’s previous guidance is no longer consistent with the EO Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which exclusively acknowledges and narrows definitions to two-sex binary definitions. In general, agencies have been directed to no longer use the word ‘gender’ in policy and instead use the word ‘sex’ in its place. President Trump’s EO Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity rescinded President Lyndon Johnson’s EO 11246, which he issued in September 1965. The former EO required federal contractors to take affirmative action regarding minorities and women. President Trump’s EO directs the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFFCP) to not allow or encourage federal agencies or contractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion or national origin effective immediately. Additionally, federal contractors are prohibited from considering these categories in any way that may violate civil rights laws. Additionally, Order 03-2025 was issued which applies to federal contractors under jurisdiction of the OFCCP who must now cease and desist all investigations and enforcement in violation of the EO 11246, and to notify all parties by January 31, 2025 of this change. What Employers Can Do: This brings to the forefront the question, “How do employers comply with anti-discrimination laws without DEI initiatives?”. Not all organizations want to comply with this EO. Many are doubling down on their DEI commitments. There is no current guidance to navigate and implement these changes. As we wait for guidance, there are a few things employers can do now. Handbook and policy reviews are vital Review DEI policies and practices in the workplace Assess whether to move forward with affirmative action plans and initiatives Assess applicant tracking systems and how information regarding women and minorities is utilized to determine discriminatory impact Assess how to best document employment decisions to show decision based on merit, rather than protected status Evaluate conflicts between applicable federal and state laws, including states laws which expressly protect gender identity and sexual orientation or require affirmative action The EEO standard has gone back to “equal opportunity” based on merit with President Trump’s Executive Orders. As a result, don’t be surprised if you see an increase in litigation regarding reverse discrimination and tension between states and federal government regarding EEO matters. Our Labor and Employment Attorneys are here for employers in drafting and revising employment policies and handbooks. 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.