$4.7 Million Wake-Up Call: Massachusetts’s First PFMLA Retaliation Verdict Puts Employers on Notice

On April 27, a jury handed down what is reported to be the first verdict in Massachusetts validating a retaliation claim under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA). In Boyle v. Wayfair, LLC, the jury found that Wayfair retaliated against plaintiff Mary Boyle for taking PFMLA leave, despite Boyle’s poor — and well-documented — performance reviews that predated her leave. The verdict resulted in a $4.7 million award, including $4 million in punitive damages, $600,000 for emotional distress, and more than $75,000 in back pay, emphasizing the significant risk employers face when terminating employees within six months of their return from PFMLA leave. 

The Six-Month Presumption and Its Evidentiary Burden 

Typical claims of unlawful retaliation place the initial burden of proof on the employee, but not for adverse actions occurring within the six months following an employee’s return from PFMLA leave. In this window, the Massachusetts legislature codified a presumption of retaliation for any adverse change to the employee’s seniority, status, benefits, compensation, or other terms and conditions of employment under G.L. c. 175M, §9(c). That is, the law assumes in the first instance that the employer retaliated against the employee, without the employee having to make any further proof. To rebut this presumption, the employer must produce clear and convincing evidence against retaliation and sufficient independent justification for the adverse action. The Boyle verdict underscores that “clear and convincing” evidence is a harrowing hill to climb. 

Boyle v. Wayfair

According to the lawsuit, Boyle joined Wayfair as a senior manager in April 2019 and received poor performance reviews over the course of her employment — reviews that were documented and took place before her PFMLA leave. Boyle took medical leave from October 2020 through June 2021 under both the FMLA and the PFMLA, later testifying she suffered from depression, exhaustion, and an inability to function normally. Upon her return, Wayfair placed Boyle on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and gave her 45 days to improve. At the end of that period, the company determined she had not met the PIP criteria and terminated her. The termination fell within the six-month window of Boyle’s return from leave, creating a presumption that Wayfair’s action was retaliatory.

Employer Takeaways

• History of poor performance may not be enough to rebut the presumption created under G.L. c. 175M, §9(c). 

  • Although Boyle had documented poor performance, the jury still found in her favor. 

• Massachusetts’s PFMLA imposes a higher evidentiary standard on employers defending against retaliation claims than the federal FMLA. 

  • Under the federal FMLA, an employer needs only to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. By contrast, under the Massachusetts PFMLA, the employer must justify its decision by clear and convincing evidence.

Employers should think twice (and then, think again) about whether the risk associated with a termination or any other adverse employment action within the six months following an employee’s PFMLA leave is worth the business decision behind it.

The case is Boyle v. Wayfair, LLC, Case No. 2184-cv-02754 in Suffolk Superior Court. 

For questions about the Massachusetts PFMLA, retaliation claims, or compliance with state and federal leave laws, please contact a member of our Labor, Employment & OSHA practice.