Liability Under Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave

As the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law continues to mature, courts have begun to articulate with greater precision the scope of employer obligations and the limits of liability under the statute. For in‑house attorneys and human resources professionals responsible for administering leave, accommodations, and sick leave policies, this developing case law provides long-awaited guidance. It clarifies not only what the statute requires, but also what it does not.

Recent decisions, one from the Supreme Judicial Court and one from the Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session, mark an important moment in the evolution of PFML jurisprudence. Together, they reflect a judicial commitment to enforcing the statute according to its text, while resisting efforts to expand liability beyond the boundaries set by the legislature. The cases also serve as a cautionary reminder that, even within those limits, routine workplace conduct can give rise to litigation if leave protections are not respected in practice.

The Limits of Individual Liability

In Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc., the court addressed a question that has lingered since PFML’s enactment: whether the statute permits claims against individuals, including corporate officers, directors, or investors.

The plaintiff, a former co‑founder and chief executive officer, alleged that while he was on approved PFML medical leave, company representatives continued to contact him and requested that he remain engaged in high-level executive work. He claimed that these communications interfered with his protected leave and constituted retaliation under the statute. In addition to suing the corporate employer, he asserted claims against individual defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the violations.

The Superior Court dismissed the PFML claims against the individual defendants with prejudice. In doing so, the court held that the PFML imposes obligations solely on employers and does not authorize claims against individuals. The court’s reasoning rested squarely on statutory text. The PFML defines “employer” by reference to the unemployment statute, which limits coverage to employing entities. Unlike the Massachusetts Wage Act, the PFML contains no language extending liability to corporate officers or agents. Similarly, unlike the Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination statute, the PFML does not include an express prohibition against aiding and abetting unlawful conduct.

The absence of such provisions was decisive. Where the legislature intends to impose individual liability or secondary liability, it does so explicitly. The court declined to infer such liability where the statute is silent.

For employers, the decision provides welcome clarity. PFML is not a personal liability statute, and it does not expose executives or human resources professionals to individual claims merely by virtue of their roles. At the same time, the court’s ruling underscores an important and separate risk for employers: contacting an employee on PFML leave and asking the employee to engage in work may constitute unlawful interference with PFML rights, even where leave has been formally approved. The court did not excuse the alleged conduct or foreclose potential claims against the employer itself. In other words, the absence of individual liability does not diminish the company’s exposure where managers or representatives engage employees in work during protected leave. The case underscores that while liability may be limited to the corporate entity, the underlying risk associated with interference or retaliation remains significant.

HR professionals should also keep in mind that MA PFML includes a unique and very strong antiretaliation provision, which provides that any negative employment action that occurs while an employee is on leave or within six months of leave is presumed to be retaliatory. An employer can overcome the presumption of retaliation only with “clear and convincing evidence” that the action was not retaliation, the employer would have taken the same action if the employee did not take leave and the employer had “sufficient independent justification” for the employment action. This is a high standard, and employers should remain vigilant to ensure that performance management, discipline, and restructuring decisions are carefully documented and insulated from PFML timing concerns.  

Benefit Accrual During PFML Leave

An earlier decision from the Supreme Judicial Court addressed a different, but equally consequential, issue: whether employees are entitled to continue accruing benefits while on PFML leave.

In Bodge v. Commonwealth, Massachusetts State Police officers challenged a policy that suspended accrual of vacation time, sick leave, and service credit during PFML leave. The plaintiffs relied on statutory language stating that PFML leave “shall not affect an employee’s right to accrue” benefits, arguing that the statute required accrual to continue during the leave period.

The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously rejected the argument that Massachusetts employers must continue accruing vacation, sick time, or service credit while an employee is on PFML leave.

The court explained that the PFML statute protects an employee’s right to accrue benefits, but does not require employers to treat PFML leave as time worked. In other words, employees remain eligible to earn benefits under their normal employment terms once they return to active service, but employers are not obligated to grant additional benefit accrual during the leave itself.

As the court made clear, nothing in the statute requires employers “to treat employees as if they were working while on leave” or to confer new benefits during the leave period. Instead, the law ensures that employees do not lose benefits they earned before taking PFML and are reinstated to the same position, status, and benefit level upon their return.

For human resources professionals managing complex and overlapping leave regimes, the decision provides important reassurance. MA PFML does not displace existing accrual frameworks or require employers to rewrite benefit policies, provided those policies are clear, consistently applied, and not targeted at employees who exercise their statutory rights. In practical terms, employers may pause accrual during PFML leave without violating the statute, provided accrued benefits are preserved and employees are properly reinstated.

That said, employers with a multistate workforce should take care not to overgeneralize this holding. Maine’s paid family and medical leave law, for example, takes a markedly different approach to benefit accrual. ME PFML provides that “[t]he taking of family leave or medical leave may not affect an employee's right to accrue vacation time, sick time, bonuses, advancement, seniority, length of service credit or other employment benefits, plans or programs.” The ME Paid Leave authority issued FAQs that state, “employers must treat the leave period as if the employee were actively working for the purpose” of accruing vacation, sick time, bonuses, advancement, service credit, participation in benefit plans and programs. 

Because Maine PFML benefits will begin on May 1, 2026, employers with employees in both states should resist the temptation to harmonize policies too broadly and should instead confirm that state‑specific accrual rules are correctly reflected in their leave administration practices.

A Measured Approach to PFML Enforcement

Taken together, these decisions reflect a measured approach to PFML enforcement. Massachusetts courts have declined to expand liability beyond the employer entity or to impose obligations not expressly set forth in the statute. At the same time, they have made clear that interference with protected leave and retaliatory conduct remain central concerns.

For Massachusetts employers, the cautionary lesson lies not in sweeping judicial interpretations, but in the everyday administration of leave. Informal requests for work during leave, inconsistent application of policies, or undocumented exceptions can quickly erode the protections that otherwise exist. Litigation under PFML is more likely to arise from these moments of imprecision than from the content of carefully drafted policies.

However, employers operating across state lines should take care not to assume that this approach applies uniformly. Employers that navigate PFML with a clear understanding of both statutory obligations and jurisdiction specific nuances will be best positioned to manage this evolving area of workplace law.