On February 26, 2026, the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court held that there is no individual liability, and no claim for aiding and abetting, under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (“PFMLA”).
In Jackson Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware) et al., the co-founder and former CEO of a discount retail business asserted claims against both the retail business as well as former board members and directors individually, alleging that they violated the PFMLA by repeatedly contacting him while he was on protected medical leave and demanding he perform work. The former CEO further claimed that the individual defendants, if not in direct violation of the PFMLA, should be held liable for aiding and abetting the retail business’ violation of the PFMLA. Two of the individual defendants moved to dismiss the former CEO’s PFMLA claims against them.
The Court compared the definition of “employer” under the PFMLA against the definition in the Massachusetts Wage Act, and ultimately held that the PFMLA did not extend liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents. As a result, the Court also held that PFMLA liability also could not be enforced against an employer’s investors or board members.
The Court also compared the PFMLA to the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Statute, M.G.L. c. 151B, and held that, unlike c. 151B, the PFML did not provide a cause of action for aiding and abetting a violation of the PFMLA. As a result, the Court declined to permit the former CEO to assert an aiding and abetting claim against the individual defendants.
While the PFMLA continues to leave many questions unanswered, the BinStar decision provides important clarification regarding the potential reach of the law.
[View source.]
