By Mark Adams
$4.75 Million Judgment Awarded
Since its inception in 2018, we have called out special attention to the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act and its heightened anti-retaliation provisions. From day one, we have emphasized the importance of documentation of actions, and holding employees accountable for performance and policy violations due to the concerns that if employers fail to do that properly and later encounter a Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave situation, it will be very problematic to be able to action against the person down the road.
Why? Because of the statute’s unique provision that raises a presumption of retaliation when any adverse action is undertaken against an employee within six months following a Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave of Absence (with such a presumption only being rebuttable by an employer introducing “clear and convincing evidence” that their actions were not retaliatory). We had been waiting for a case to put that standard to the test and what the consequences will be. Well, after almost eight years, we have our first PFMLA verdict, and it was certainly an eye-opener for sure as a jury awarded an employee $4.75 million in damages!
On April 27th, a Suffolk Superior Court jury awarded plaintiff Mary Boyle $4 million in punitive damages, $600,000 for emotional distress, and more than $75,000 in back pay, agreeing that Boyle’s former employer, Wayfair, had retaliated against her for taking leave under the PFMLA and for complaining of age discrimination.
In this case, the employee joined Wayfair in 2019 as a Senior Manager. The position did not set forth any specific set of job duties. Although her first performance review she received indicated that she was “meeting expectations”, the review did indicate that there was “room for improvement” but was making “tremendous progress”.
Following a change in management, the employee was assigned a new role as a “Program Manager”. While she was responsible for the company’s “virtual desktop initiative” her role was not otherwise defined. Her February 2020 performance review scored declined as she received an “inconsistent performance” rating, though her May 2020 review (which came out while the employee was on a maternity leave) rose back to meeting expectations with a notation that she had “considerable improvement.”
Following the completion of her maternity leave in September 2020, the employee received “a lot of feedback” about the “lack of shared project goals” regarding the virtual desktop initiative project and that she had until November 6, 2020, to “demonstrate measured and sustained improvement.”
From October 30, 2020, to January 27, 2021, she took federal FMLA leave and from January 1, 2021, to June 1, 2021, took Massachusetts PFML as well. During her leave, the employee participated in her January 2021 review in which she assessed as “rarely met our high expectations.”
In May 2021, she requested that when she returned, she be allowed to work half-days for 2 weeks and a request that assignment instructions be written. The company granted her half-days for one week but denied the request for written instructions.
When she ultimately returned from her leaves, she was place on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and given 45 days to “demonstrate measured and sustained improvement.” Ultimately, it was determined that she didn’t meet the PIP and was terminated. (Boyle v. Wayfair)
[Editor’s note: Of the $4.75 million in damages: $4 million of the amount was in the form of punitive damages, $600,000 for emotional distress and more than $75,000 in back pay. Punitive damages are typically awarded when it is determined that the employer’s actions are considered outrageous or a reckless indifference towards an employee’s rights. Certainly the timing of the position restructuring and change and tenor of the performance reviews played a role in construing the case that way. It remains to be seen if the decision and/or award will be challenged or appealed but the decision shows the challenges that an employer can face in overcoming the retaliation presumption that the law provides.]