Compliance Stuff

Takeaways In  Laughlin,  a Massachusetts Superior Court clarified that the Massachusetts PFMLA does not impose individual liability to corporate officers or agents because the law’s definition of “employer” does not extend liability to individuals. The court also rejected an aiding-and-abetting theory under the PFMLA. Employers should consider  Laughlin  when evaluating claims dismissal strategies when plaintiffs name individuals as defendants in claims and limit interactions with employees on approved PFMLA leave. Related links Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware), et al. Article A Massachusetts Superior Court judge has dismissed Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA) claims against two individual defendants, holding that the PFMLA does not extend individual liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, including individual investors or board members.  Laughlin v. BinStar, Inc. (Delaware), et al. ,  No. 25-1625-BLS1 (Feb. 26, 202...

Last year, the Appellate Division of the Massachusetts District Court held in  Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated —a decision that we addressed in an  article  published on October 28, 2024—that retention bonuses do not constitute “wages” within the meaning of the Massachusetts Wage Act. On October 22, 2025, in a significant win for employers, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a decision  affirming  the Appellate Division’s holding, thus confirming that retention bonuses are not subject to the Wage Act and its penalty provisions requiring treble damages and attorneys’ fees for violations. Quick Hits On October 22, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that a retention bonus is not a “wage” for purposes of the Massachusetts Wage Act, and that such bonuses are instead a form of additional, contingent compensation outside the ambit of the Wage Act. The court reasoned that the purpose of a retention agreement is to benefit the empl...