By Kathleen Berney, Allison Eddy, Caroline Galiatsos, Samantha Halem, Charlotte Petilla, Catherine Reuben, Sarah Ruter June 30, 2026
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).
By Samantha Halem, Laurie Bishop, John Arnold April 23, 2026
As return-to-office expectations continue to evolve, many employers are seeing an increase in requests for remote work as a “reasonable accommodation” of an employee’s disability. Recent FAQs on Federal Sector Telework from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), although technically only applicable to federal workers, offer insight into how the EEOC may handle failure to accommodate claims involving remote work. The guidance underscores a familiar but critical point: to avoid potential liability, accommodation decisions should be individualized, well-reasoned, and documented.
It is important to remember that the EEOC only enforces federal law. State agencies such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) enforce state laws that may impose broader accommodation obligations than federal law.
Deciding whether to approve a remote workplace accommodation request is a highly fact-specific inquiry, and employers face legal risk if such requests are not properly handled. When considering a request to work remotely as an accommodation, employers should consider the following five questions:
1. Can the employee perform the essential functions of the job remotely?
This is the threshold inquiry. If an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the role from home, remote work is unlikely to be a reasonable accommodation.
This analysis should be grounded in actual job requirements, not just general preferences for in-person work. Employers should be prepared to identify which specific duties require on-site presence and explain why those duties cannot be performed remotely. Broad statements about collaboration, productivity, or workplace culture, without more, may be insufficient if the decision is challenged.
2. What has the employee (or other employees in similar roles) been allowed to do in the past?
Past practice may matter. The EEOC’s guidance acknowledges that it had observed agency employers “exceed[ing] their reasonable accommodation obligations from a desire to be a supportive employer for disabled individuals or in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”, and that such an employer “is not obligated to continue providing them and can discontinue such when they exceed what is legally required….”
That said, if the employee was previously permitted to work remotely, the employer should be prepared to explain why that employee’s on-site presence is now being required. The perception of inconsistent treatment across employees in similar roles is another source of risk. Employers should therefore also evaluate whether accommodations are, to the extent appropriate based on job duties and individual medical needs, consistently handled.
3. Is the request medically necessary due to a disability?
Remote work as an accommodation must be tied to a disability-related limitation. If it is based solely on preference or convenience, it is not required as a reasonable accommodation.
Employers are entitled to request medical documentation supporting the need for remote work and explaining how the accommodation would enable the employee to perform the job.
4. Are we engaging in a true interactive process or jumping to an answer?
The interactive process is not a formality. It is a legal requirement.
Employers should engage in a meaningful, good faith dialogue with the employee to understand the limitations involved and to explore potential accommodations. That process should be documented, including what was requested, what alternatives were considered, and why certain options were determined to be ineffective or infeasible (keeping in mind that “undue hardship” is generally a high bar).
When disputes arise, enforcement agencies and courts often focus on the process as much as the decision itself.
5. Is there an alternative accommodation that would be effective?
Even if full-time remote work is not reasonable, the analysis should not end there.
Employers should consider whether other accommodations could effectively address the employee’s needs, such as a modified schedule, a hybrid arrangement, intermittent leave, or adjustments to the work environment. Demonstrating flexibility and a willingness to explore alternatives can significantly reduce risk, even where requests to work remotely are ultimately denied.
A Final Thought
Remote work is not required in every situation. The key issue is whether the employer’s decision-making process is consistent, well-reasoned, and supported by the facts.
Handled thoughtfully, remote work requests can be managed effectively. Handled poorly or inconsistently, they can become the foundation for a dispute.
Assessing accommodation requests can be tricky business, especially in this era of evolving workplace expectations. If you are working through a request for an accommodation and are not sure if it is reasonable or if it would create an undue hardship, don’t hesitate to reach out to an HRW attorney for guidance.
For questions or more information, please contact:
By Samantha Halem, Catherine Reuben, Alicia Ward, Sarah Ruter, Caroline Galiatsos, Sophie Levine January 22, 2026
There are a few states and localities such as Massachusetts, California, and New York City with employment laws going into effect in February 2026 of which employers with employees in these states should be aware. Let’s dig in:
Massachusetts:
California:
New York City:
For questions or more information, please contact:
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein © 2026. All Rights Reserved.
By Samantha Halem, Alicia Ward, Sarah Ruter, Sophie Levine, Charlotte Petilla January 6, 2026
’Twas the week after the holidays…
’Twas the week after the holidays, when all through the office,
The parties were over, but not every consequence.
The bonuses were issued, the PTO was spent,
But those few awkward moments can become a lament.
While the winter holidays may be winding down, the real workplace challenges often emerge after the decorations come down. New complaints surface, feelings about bonuses linger, and questions arise about any new changes implemented by the organization.
To help employers manage the post-holiday fallout (and start the new year on steady footing), here are some seasonally inspired reminders to keep in mind.
Silent Night? Not Quite: When Holiday Issues Surface Later
Holiday gatherings may be over, but concerns often arise days or even weeks afterward.
Failure to properly triage and address post event flare-ups is often where legal risk truly begins.
Naughty or Nice? Revisiting Conduct After the Party
There is no “holiday” exception to workplace rules.
What seemed minor in December could escalate if ignored in January. Make the resolution next year to learn from this year’s mistakes, and consider changes such as implementing clearer alcohol policies, inviting significant others to parties, and making sure that employees who have been drinking have a safe way to get home.
When the Cheer Wears Off: Bonuses, Gifts, & Hard Feelings
Year-end compensation decisions can leave lasting impressions.
Clear communication can help prevent lingering resentment or legal exposure. This is a good time to review existing bonus plans, commission plans, and overall compensation. The language of such plans or agreements should be tailored to effectuate your goals. If the calculation of a bonus is solely based on hard numbers, be clear on how the calculation is done and precisely what factors are considered. If a bonus is discretionary, you need language that does not create an entitlement.
“Optional” Still Matters…Even After the Holidays
Concerns sometimes arise when employees felt pressured to attend holiday events.
Optional should mean optional — in December and beyond.
Deck the Halls… Then Take Them Down Thoughtfully
Décor and messaging can continue to matter even after the season ends.
Always remember: inclusivity doesn’t end when the holidays do.
Auld Lang Syne: Resetting Expectations for the New Year
As employees return from time off and refocus on work:
A proactive reset can prevent post-holiday issues from becoming year-long problems.
Final Frosty Reminder
While the holidays may be behind us, their impact on the workplace often is not. Taking time now to address concerns, clarify expectations, and reflect on lessons learned can help employers start the new year on solid ground.
If questions arise about post-holiday conduct, bonuses, or workplace concerns, the HRW team is here to help.
For questions or more information, please contact:
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein 2026 All Rights Reserved
By Samantha Halem, Alicia Ward, Alexandra Mitropoulos, Sarah Ruter December 2, 2025
On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy issued its Priority Guidance Plan (“PGP”) for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. The PGP lists areas of tax law on which the Treasury Department (the “Department”) (including the Internal Revenue Service) intends to issue formal guidance in the future and serves to identify and prioritize issues to be addressed through regulations and other methodologies. According to the Department, the PGP outlines what the Department will focus its resources on and what it believes are the “items that are most important to taxpayers and tax administration.”
In the September 30th PGP, the Department specifically declares its intention to provide more robust guidance focusing on independent schools’ status as 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Specifically, the Department states that it intends to issue guidance on:
[T]he application of the fundamental public policy against racial discrimination, including consideration of recent case law, in determining the eligibility of private schools for recognition of tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3).
Thus, the Department appears to intend to apply the Trump Administration’s policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) currently applicable to institutions of higher education, public schools, and federal contractors, to independent schools, using their 501(c)(3) status as their entry point.
The Trump Administration’s position on DEI is largely outlined in Executive Orders and agency guidance and memoranda. Most notably, the Executive Order issued on January 21, 2025, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” details the Administration’s intention to end policies and practices by organizations that “have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.” The January 21 Executive Order further orders “all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”
Similarly, the agency guidance following the January 21, 2025 Executive Order, including a July 29, 2025 Memorandum from the Department of Justice, have stated that programs and policies that prioritize or focus on race may be considered discriminatory (and therefore, illegal) by this administration. The PGP appears to be signaling an extension of these policies to independent schools, which could result in increased scrutiny on school’s admissions, hiring, and inclusion policies.
Importantly, there is precedent for 501(c)(3) status being used to achieve civil rights objectives. In 1971, the IRS determined that private schools could not segregate or deny admission on the basis of race while receiving taxexempt status. Thereafter, in Bob Jones University v. the United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the University was not entitled to 501(c)(3) tax status because it had racially discriminatory policies, that these policies were “contrary to public policy,” and that therefore, the University was not eligible for the exemption.
At this time, there is no change in IRS rules, and the prior requirements of Revenue Procedure 75-50, first enacted in 1975, still apply to independent schools. Revenue Procedure 75-50 requires independent schools to take certain steps to demonstrate that they have a policy prohibiting race discrimination. Additionally, state laws prohibiting discrimination continue to be enforced and are unrelated to efforts by the Trump Administration under federal law. Nonetheless, independent schools should prepare themselves for the Trump Administration’s potential conclusion that DEI efforts which have until now been embraced and championed by their schools might subject them to claims of racial discrimination and attacks on their tax-exempt status.
HRW lawyers have been and will continue to guide independent schools in how to prepare for the Department’s issuance of guidance on racial discrimination in independent schools.
If you have any questions about the upcoming IRS guidance, please contact:
• Samantha Halem (shalem@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4878);
• Alexandra Mitropoulos (amitropoulos@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4332);
• Alicia Ward (award@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4357); or
• Sarah Ruter (sruter@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4879).
Hirsch Roberts Weinstein 2025 All Rights Reserved
