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...

  On January 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in  Walkingstick Dixon v. Oklahoma Regional University System Board of Regents   that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) permits actions against individuals in limited circumstances when the individual qualifies as an “employer” under the “economic reality test.” Quick Hits The Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s application of the economic reality test to determine whether an individual qualifies as an “employer” and thus may be subject to individual liability under the FMLA. In doing so, the Tenth Circuit joined the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits in holding that the FMLA permits claims for individual liability. Although the Tenth Circuit concluded that a supervisor can be subject to liability under the FMLA, plaintiffs will have difficulty establishing individual liability under the economic reality test. Summary The FMLA permits eligible employees to take leave for serious health...