Massachusetts Jury Issues First Paid Family and Medical Leave Act Retaliation Verdict

On April 27, a Suffolk Superior Court jury issued what is believed to be the first verdict validating a retaliation claim under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA). The jury awarded nearly $4.7 million to former Wayfair senior manager Mary Boyle on her claims for retaliation under both the PFMLA and the Mass. Fair Employment Practices Act. Although the PFMLA was enacted in 2018 and benefits became available in 2021, there has been limited judicial interpretation of the Act—including its anti-retaliation provision—and, until now, no PFMLA retaliation claim had proceeded through trial to final jury verdict. While the size of the plaintiff’s verdict in Boyle v. Wayfair, LLC was arguably more about the Fair Employment Practices Act claim than the PFMLA claim, the case is a good reminder to employers about the robust antiretaliation protections afforded to employees under the PFMLA and the unique burden of proof that applies if adverse action is taken against an employee within six months of their return from PFML leave.

Facts Considered by the Jury

Boyle joined Wayfair in 2019 as a senior manager on the service innovation team and had a history of documented performance issues predating her leave. Less than three months into the job, she received a “3 – meeting expectations” rating, with feedback noting she had room for improvement. In August 2019, her manager reassigned team roles, moving Boyle into a program manager position overseeing the company’s virtual desktop initiative—an assignment Boyle viewed as undefined and lacking clear expectations. Her February 2020 review dropped to a “4 – inconsistent performance,” citing her need for guidance in structuring ambiguous projects and tailoring communications. By May 2020, Boyle’s rating returned to a “3,” with noted improvement but areas in which her manager expected continued development. In September 2020, Boyle’s manager expressed concerns about her performance, including mismanaged expectations and unclear project goals, and informed talent strategy leadership that Boyle was no longer a good fit for the team. Boyle was given until November 6, 2020 to show “measured and sustained improvement.” At this point, Boyle complained to management that she was being discriminated against based on her age and sought a transfer, which was denied based on her performance issues. Evidence was presented that, after Boyle reported age discrimination, management actively solicited negative feedback from her subordinates. Additionally, a Wayfair employee testified that around this time, another manager claimed that Boyle was faking health issues to be out on medical leave to avoid being fired.

Boyle took PFMLA and FMLA leave from October 2020 to June 2021 for medical reasons, including depression, exhaustion, and an inability to sleep or function normally. While on leave, she received a January 2021 performance review rating of “5 – rarely meets expectations.” Before returning, she requested two weeks of half-days and written instructions for assignments, and Wayfair granted one week of half-days but denied the request for written guidance. Upon Boyle’s return from leave, she was placed on a 45-day performance improvement plan. At the end of her PIP period, Wayfair determined she had not met the criteria and terminated her employment.

The Unique Burden of Proof in PFMLA Cases

The Massachusetts PFMLA has an unusual provision that states that if an employee suffers an adverse employment action within six months of an employee’s return from PFMLA leave, there is a presumption that the adverse action is in retaliation for taking the leave. Unlike typical retaliation claims, where the employee has the burden of proof, the PFMLA shifts the burden to the employer to prove that it did not retaliate against the employee. To rebut the presumption, an employer must present “clear and convincing” evidence that the action was not retaliatory and was supported by independent justification.

The Jury’s Verdict and Damage Award

Boyle sued for retaliation under both PFMLA and M.G.L. c. 151B—the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute. Despite the documented performance concerns, the jury found that Wayfair retaliated against Boyle for complaining of age discrimination and that Wayfair had failed to meet the “clear and convincing” standard under the PFMLA. The jury awarded $4 million in punitive damages, $600,000 for emotional distress, and more than $75,000 in back pay. It should be noted that the large punitive damages award resulted from the 151B claim rather than the PFMLA claim, as only judges, not juries, can award punitive damages under the PFMLA.

The Boyle verdict reminds employers that documented performance issues may not be sufficient to establish the heightened clear and convincing evidence standard required to overcome the statutory presumption of retaliation under PFMLA. Moreover, the large punitive damages award resulting from the 151B claim emphasizes that temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action remains powerful evidence for plaintiffs. Employers should therefore seriously consider the risks and litigation exposure associated with any adverse action taken shortly after an employee engages in protected activity or within the first six months following an employee’s return from PFMLA leave.

Practical Steps for Employers

To avoid litigation and reduce exposure to retaliation claims under the PFMLA and Chapter 151B, employers should:

• Regularly and contemporaneously document employee performance concerns, disciplinary issues, and coaching discussions before any request for protected leave or protected activity occurs;

• Train managers and supervisors on how to identify, document, and communicate performance deficiencies in a consistent and non-retaliatory manner;

• Ensure employee handbooks, leave policies, and PFML procedures are updated to reflect current Massachusetts law and that employees receive all required notices and leave-related documentation;

• Require managers to confer with Human Resources—and, where appropriate, employment counsel— before taking adverse action against employees who recently engaged in protected activity or took protected leave;

• Evaluate whether termination or discipline decisions are supported by objective evidence and are consistent with prior treatment of similarly situated employees; and

• Train managers and HR personnel on the PFMLA’s rebuttable presumption of retaliation and the heightened litigation risks associated with adverse action taken shortly after protected leave.

For questions or more information, please contact:

• Kathleen Berney (kberney@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4335);

• Allison Eddy (aeddy@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4333);

• Caroline Galiatsos (cgaliatsos@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4363);

• Samantha Halem (shalem@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4878);

• Charlotte Petilla (cpetilla@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4326

• Catherine Reuben (creuben@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4316); or

• Sarah Ruter (sruter@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4879).