Legal Updates

Court Clarifies Job Protections Under Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act

Job protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act (the “MMLA”) apply only to an employee’s first eight weeks of maternity leave – not to any additional leave period that the employer may offer, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has ruled.

In reaching this ruling, the SJC invalidated guidelines of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (the “MCAD”) providing that the MMLA’s protections would extend throughout any such additional leave period unless the employer notified the employee in writing prior to the start of the leave that they would not.

The SJC’s ruling, in Global Naps, Inc. v, Awiszus, does not, however, mean that employers have carte blanche to take employment actions against those on maternity leave after the first eight weeks.  Depending on the circumstances, such employment actions may be subject to claims for, among other things, breach of contract, gender discrimination, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.  Thus, while Global Naps, Inc. operates to limit the MMLA obligations of employers, employers should continue to exercise caution before taking employment action affecting pregnant employees and/or parental leaves.

Note:  While the MMLA expressly applies only to “female employee[s],” denying male employees the opportunity to take an equivalent eight-week paternity leave, as well as any extended leave typically offered to women in the maternity context, may constitute gender discrimination under state and federal law.  Accordingly, employers are encouraged to consider treating such leaves as “parental leave” and to administer them without regard to gender.

Factual Background Of Global NAPs, Inc.

Sandy Stephens, a former employee of Global NAPs, Inc. (“Global”), alleged that Global promised her two additional weeks of maternity leave beyond the eight weeks of leave provided by the MMLA.  After Global fired her during the additional leave period, Stephens sued Global, claiming that its termination of her employment violated the MMLA as interpreted by the MCAD in its MMLA guidelines.  Stephens filed a charge of discrimination with the MCAD and then removed the case to the Superior Court.  After a trial in the Superior Court, the jury returned a verdict in Stephens’s favor, which resulted in Global being found liable to Stephens for damages in excess of $2.3 million, later reduced on remittitur to $1.3 million.  Following a series of post-trial motions and appeals, the case made its way to the SJC, which clarified the leave entitlement provided by the MMLA.

The MMLA, which applies to Massachusetts employers having six or more employees, allows full-time female employees who have completed their initial probationary period (or, if there is no probationary period, who have completed three consecutive months of employment), to take an eight-week job-protected leave of absence for the purpose of giving birth or adopting a child.  M.G.L. c. 149, § 105D.  The MMLA further provides that an employee returning from an MMLA leave of absence “shall be restored to her previous, or a similar, position with the same status, pay, length of service credit and seniority, wherever applicable, as of the date of her leave.”

At the time of the dispute, the MCAD administered and enforced the MMLA in accordance with the following guidelines:

“Nothing in the MMLA shall be construed to affect any bargaining agreement, employment agreement or company policy providing benefits that are greater than, or in addition to, those required under [the MMLA].  An employer may grant a longer maternity leave than required under the MMLA.  If the employer does not intend for full MMLA rights to apply to the period beyond eight weeks, however, it must clearly so inform the employee in writing prior to the commencement of the leave.”  (Emphasis added.)

Stephens argued that because Global never gave her written notice that her MMLA leave would not extend beyond the first eight weeks of her maternity leave, she was entitled to return to her job following the conclusion of her leave.

SJC Decision

The SJC rejected Stephens’s argument and, in doing so, ruled that the MCAD guidelines on which she relied were invalid.  In particular, the SJC found that the MCAD guidelines conflicted with the clear and unambiguous language of the MMLA, which states that female employees are afforded rights under the MMLA when they are absent from employment “for a period not exceeding eight weeks” for the purpose of birth or adoption.  (Emphasis added.)  Thus, while acknowledging that agency guidelines are entitled to substantial deference if reasonable and consistent with the language of the statute, the SJC found that no deference was due in this particular case.

In conclusion, the SJC held that when an “employer provides additional [MMLA] benefits to a female employee and subsequently takes an adverse employment action, the employee’s recourse is the initiation of a common-law action for breach of contract, breach of oral representations, detrimental reliance, or the like[,]” but not an action under the MMLA.

Other Potential Risks For Employers

As noted above, depending on the circumstances, the employee also may have independent claims under such theories as pregnancy/gender discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, both of which are cognizable pregnancy-based claims when supported by appropriate facts.

Moreover, under both state and federal law, if an employee is disabled at the expiration of her maternity leave, her employer may have an obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to enable her to return to work.  In some circumstances, additional leave beyond the eight weeks provided by the MMLA, or beyond any additional parental leave that the employer might customarily offer, may constitute such a reasonable accommodation.  Thus, employers would be wise to think of the eight weeks of job-protected leave provided by the MMLA as a “floor,” rather than as a “ceiling.”

Additionally, if the employer is covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the employee satisfies its eligibility requirements, then the employee also may be entitled to supplemental unpaid leave under this statute.

Recommendations For Employers

In light of the SJC’s Global NAPs, Inc. decision, we recommend that Massachusetts employers take the following steps:

• Review its policies and practices to ensure they are compliant with the MMLA.
• If the business presently offers only maternity leave, consider offering an equivalent paternity leave to male employees, or, alternatively, a gender-neutral parental leave, in order to minimize the risk of gender discrimination claims under state and/or federal law.
• Be circumspect in administering parental leave; confer with counsel before taking adverse employment action against an employee who is on parental leave.
• Carefully consider whether an employee on parental leave may be entitled to additional time off under the company’s policies and practices, under the FMLA, or as a reasonable accommodation to a pregnancy-related disability.

*          *          *

Administering leaves related to pregnancy and parenting can be one of the most challenging human resources tasks that employers face.  Thus, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have about the MMLA and its interplay with other workplace rights and obligations.