Royal

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Releases Guidance on COVID-Related Caregiver Discrimination

March 17, 2022

According to new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an employer is not allowed to discriminate against an employee who is a “caregiver” based on their employee’s sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Although it is not a protected class in it of itself, a “caregiver” is anyone over the age of 18 who provides care for another (i.e. relative, child, friend, etc.)



Examples of COVID-related caregiver discrimination include:

  • Denying male caregivers leave or a flexible work schedule to care for a family member with COVID-19, when the employer provides these accommodations to similarly situated female employees;
  • Assigning an unmanageable amount of work to an employee of color because they requested leave for pandemic related caregiving purposes;
  • Requiring an older employee to accept a reduced work schedule out of concern that they do not have the stamina to maintain their job duties while taking care of a grandchild recovering from COVID-19.


Employers also may not discriminate employees based on their need to provide care for an individual with a disability. Examples include:

  • Refusing an employee’s request for unpaid leave to care for a parent with “long COVID,” if the employer approves other unpaid leave requests to take care of other personal responsibilities;
  • Declining an applicant because the applicant’s spouse’s disability increases the likelihood of her experiencing severe COVID-19 symptoms and the employer does not want to potentially incur higher health insurance costs, or the employer’s refusal to add the spouse to health insurance coverage when such coverage is made available to other employees’ spouses.


With that being said, employers do not have to excuse poor performance resulting from an employee’s caregiving duties, so long as they do not inconsistently apply workplace discipline policies based on an employee’s race, gender, national origin, etc.


Employers should also be sure to consult with outside counsel on individual state and local anti-discrimination and leave of absence laws. These may offer broader protections.


If your business has any questions on caregiver discrimination, or any other employment and labor law matter, please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm; (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: