Updated Guidance on Religious Objections to Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

October 27, 2021

As the world continues to deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have begun to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of their employment. This has undoubtedly raised many questions an employer’s ability to mandate that their employees get vaccinated. On October 25, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released updated guidance to address questions about Title VII and religious objections to employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects an employee from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Likewise, Title VII requires employers to accommodate employees’ “sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances absent undue hardship.” This includes the requirement that employers consider requests of employees who seek to be exempt from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement based on a sincerely held religious belief.


Employees who wish to be exempt from a vaccine mandate due to a sincerely held religious belief must inform their employer of this. Employers must then demonstrate that “undue hardship” is not required to accommodate the request. It is important to note that Title VII does not require employers to consider requests for exemption based on social, political, or economic views, or personal preference of the employee. The ability to grant or deny a requested exemption rests heavily on the elements of “undue hardship” and a showing of a sincerely held religious belief.


If you have any questions about the elements of the undue hardship requirement, religious and other Title VII exemptions to employer COVID-19 vaccination mandates, or other employment issues generally, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. 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.

Royal was Proud to Sponsor the 2025 BusinessWest Difference Makers Event!

April 10, 2025
Though the Difference Makers event has come to a close, let's continue to shine a light on the transformative power of giving back to our community! Every year, The Royal Law Firm is humbled to be a part of this incredible event that spotlights the brightest stars in our community. We can't wait to celebrate the 2026 Difference Makers and the boundless impact they'll have!