Mass. Court Limits Liability under PFMLA to Employers, Not Individuals

Takeaways

• In Laughlin, a Massachusetts Superior Court clarified that the Massachusetts PFMLA does not impose individual liability to corporate officers or agents because the law’s definition of “employer” does not extend liability to individuals.
• The court also rejected an aiding-and-abetting theory under the PFMLA.
• Employers should consider Laughlin when evaluating claims dismissal strategies when plaintiffs name individuals as defendants in claims and limit interactions with employees on approved PFMLA leave.

Related links

Article

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has dismissed Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA) claims against two individual defendants, holding that the PFMLA does not extend individual liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, including individual investors or board members. Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware), et al., No. 25-1625-BLS1 (Feb. 26, 2026).

Background

In Laughlin, the plaintiff, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of BinStar, alleged that while he was on medical leave covered by the PFMLA, two of BinStar’s board members repeatedly contacted him demanding that he perform “CEO-level duties,” such as signing dissolution consents, removing a former employee from the board, and handling 401(k) tasks. He claimed that this conduct violated the PFMLA, G.L. c. 175M, § 9, which makes it “unlawful for any employer to retaliate … against an employee for” taking leave under the statute.

The two board members moved to dismiss the PFMLA claims against them, arguing that the statute did not provide for individual liability. The court agreed.

Definition of “Employer”

In dismissing the claims against the two individuals, the trial court reasoned that the PFMLA incorporates the definition of “employer” from G.L. c. 151A (relating to the Massachusetts unemployment system), which does not extend individual liability in the same way as other statutes, such as the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s alternate theory of liability, that the PFMLA allows him to assert an “aiding and abetting” theory under the statute, akin to aiding and abetting discrimination claims allowed under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, G.L. c. 151B. It explained that the PFMLA contains no language to support an aiding and abetting claim.

Best Practices for Employers Following Laughlin

1. Review who communicates with employees on leave. Limit outreach to designated HR or management personnel and ensure communications are necessary, consistent, carefully framed, and do not interfere with employee rights under the PFMLA.
2. Avoid asking employees on leave to perform substantive work. Even if individual defendants may not be liable under the statute, requests that an employee handle job duties during leave can still create risk for the employer.
3. Train managers, executives, and board-facing leadership on leave boundaries. Make sure company decision-makers understand what types of contact may appear coercive or inconsistent with protected leave rights.
4. Update leave-administration protocols. Confirm that internal procedures address when employees on leave may be contacted, for what purpose, and how those communications should be documented.
5. Evaluate early dismissal strategies for individual defendants. If a PFMLA claim is asserted against officers, directors, investors, or other individuals, employers may want to assess whether Laughlin supports an early motion to dismiss.
6. Continue to monitor retaliation and interference risk at the entity level. The trial court decision arguably helps narrow claims against individuals, but it is not binding precedent and does not reduce the employer’s own compliance obligations under the statute.

* * *

If you have questions about the PFMLA, preparing a performance improvement plan, or other workplace issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.