Massachusetts SJC issues important decision on paid family and medical leave
Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) went into effect on January 1, 2021. Since then, employers have had a number of unanswered questions related to the statute and accompanying regulations. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its first decision interpreting language in the PFML law in Bodge v. Commonwealth et. al, SJC-13567, (September 13, 2024). In the case, the SJC was called upon to answer an important question, which had been weighing on the minds of employers since the law was enacted: whether certain employer-provided benefits, such as vacation and sick time, continue to accrue while an employee is out of work on PFML? In rendering its decision, SJC held that a policy denying the accrual of vacation, sick time and similar benefits while an employee is out on PFML leave does not violate the law. Here is what you need to know.
Police officers denied accrual of various benefits under policy
In this case, a group of state police officers, challenged their employer’s policy of denying the accrual of certain benefits — including length-of-service credit, vacation and sick time — while they were taking PFML leave. The police officers wanted to use PFML for bonding following the birth of a child, which is permitted under the PFML statute. However, when they requested the leave, they were told that pursuant to the Commonwealth’s policy that they would lose their seniority and would not accrue vacation and sick time, or length-of-service credit while on leave. The plaintiffs claimed to be harmed by this policy because instead of seeking PFML they used other leave options (or took no leave at all). The police officers then filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth, heads of the Massachusetts State Police, and the State Retirement Board, alleging that the denial of their right to accrue these benefits was a violation of the PFML. In their lawsuit, they argued that the following language in the PFML statute demonstrated the right to accrue these benefits while on leave: “The taking of family or medical leave shall not affect an employee’s right to accrue vacation time, sick leave, bonuses, advancement, seniority, length-of-service credit or other employment benefits, plans or programs.” The trial court dismissed the matter and the police officers appealed, landing the case at the SJC, the highest court in Massachusetts.
SJC sides with employer
Fortunately for employers, the SJC disagreed with the police officers. In doing so, the Court noted that the PFML statute provides that an employee who has taken such leave shall be restored to their previous position with the same status, pay, benefits, and seniority as they had prior to the leave. The Court then pointed out that the above-quoted language relied upon by the police officers only ensures that employee rights to such benefits are not affected (i.e., reduced) while they are out. For example, if at the time an employee goes out on PFML they are entitled to accrue 4.5 hours of vacation or sick time per pay period, they must accrue the same 4.5 hours of vacation or sick time per pay period when they return from leave. The same formula applies for length-of-service credit. In the decision, the SJC also took a moment to remind employers that the same “right to accrue” language does not apply to health insurance benefits, which (as readers know) must continue undisturbed while employees are on out on PFML.
In the end, it seems obvious that the SJC got this one right. The language relied upon by the plaintiffs in this case says nothing about continuing to accrue time off while employees are out on leave. Instead, it clearly addresses their “right” to accrue time off and seniority rights when they return from leave. Plus, company-provided benefits like vacation and sick time often accrue based on the number of hours worked per week or month. If an employee is out on PFML leave, they are not working; so allowing them to accrue benefits linked to hours worked makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine. Chalk this one up as a good, common-sense decision by the SJC.
Bottom line
The Massachusetts PFML statute is robust and it carries significant penalties, including potential triple damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. There is also an automatic presumption of retaliation provision, which is unlike any other Massachusetts employment statute. As a result, any employers with questions about the statute or how to handle leave related to their employees should contact labor and employment counsel.
John S. Gannon is an experienced employment attorney and Partner with Skoler, Abbott & Presser, P.C. in Massachusetts. You can reach him at jgannon@skoler-abbott.com or 413-737-4753.
