Seyfarth Synopsis: In a recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision, the Court held that there is no individual liability or aiding and abetting claim under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA). In Laughlin v. Binstar, Inc., et al., Binstar’s former CEO claimed that the company and its board members and investors violated the PFMLA by contacting him and asking him to perform work during his protected medical leave. The Court dismissed the PFMLA claim against the moving individual defendants, concluding that unlike the Massachusetts Wage Act, the language of the PFMLA does not extend liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, and that the PFMLA does not provide a cause of action for aiding and abetting a violation.
On February 27, 2026, in Laughlin v. Binstar, Inc., et al., Judge Peter Krupp of the Suffolk Superior Court Business Litigation Session (BLS) granted a motion to dismiss as to the PFMLA claims against two individual defendants, a board member and an investor. Among other claims, the plaintiff, the former CEO and co-founder, alleged that Binstar, a discount retail operator, and certain board members and investors violated the PFMLA, and that the individual defendants aided and abetted the PFMLA violation, by contacting him and asking him to perform work during his protected medical leave.
Two of the individual defendants moved to dismiss the PFMLA claims. The court granted the motion, dismissing these claims with prejudice. The Court chose not to opine on whether Plaintiff had valid PFMLA claims against Binstar and the non-moving individual defendant.
The Court reasoned that the PFMLA incorporates the definitions of “employee” and “employer” from the Massachusetts Wage Act, M.G.L. c. 151A. Chapter 151A defines an “employer” as “any employing unit” or “any individual or type of organization” who has “one or more individuals performing services for him or it.” Based on this definition and the lack of explicit language extending liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, the Court concluded that the obligations related to providing paid family or medical leave fall solely on the employer and cannot be imputed to board members or investors. In doing so, the Court distinguished language in the PFMLA from the Wage Act, noting that the Wage Act includes explicit language extending liability to a corporate employer’s officers and agents.
The Court also held that the PFMLA does not provide a cause of action for aiding and abetting a PFMLA violation. Comparing the PFMLA to the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, M.G.L. c. 151B, the Court reasoned that while c. 151B includes the language, “to aid, abet or incite,” the PFMLA does not include any such language, indicating that the legislature intentionally omitted liability for this type of claim.
Although the express language of the PFMLA previously implied that it did not provide for individual liability or an aiding and abetting cause of action, this decision is a welcome clarification for employers. Please reach out to one of the authors or your Seyfarth attorney with any questions.
“With approximately 900 lawyers across 17 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide.”
Please visit the firm link to site
