Aimee Bodge and several other state troopers filed a lawsuit alleging that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a policy of denying the accrual of benefits, specifically seniority, length-of-service credit, vacation time, and sick time, while an employee was on Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA) leave was in violation of the Act. They further argued that this policy discriminated against female employees.
The plaintiffs argued that, among other provisions, Section 2(f) of the Act mandates continued benefit accrual. The Act provides: “The taking of family or medical leave shall not affect an employee’s right to accrue vacation time, sick leave, bonuses, advancement, seniority, length-of-service credit or other employment benefits, plans or programs. During the duration of an employee’s family or medical leave, the employer shall provide for, contribute to or otherwise maintain the employee’s employment-related health insurance benefits, if any, at the level and under the conditions coverage would have been provided if the employee had continued working continuously for the duration of such leave.”
The issue stemmed from the intersection of state troopers’ rights to take leave for bonding with a new child, whether through birth, adoption, or foster care placement, and the accrual of benefits typically tied to their employment. Prior to February 2022, troopers taking PFMLA leave not only did not accrue vacation time, sick time, or length-of-service credit, but they also lost seniority. Though the seniority policy was later discontinued, the denial of benefit accrual during PFMLA leave remained in place. Several plaintiffs indicated that the Commonwealth’s policies regarding PFMLA leave had affected their decision to take leave.
The Commonwealth responded with a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the Superior Court, who concluded that the PFMLA does not mandate the accrual of benefits during leave. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed, holding that the Act does not require employers to guarantee the accrual of vacation and sick time during an employee’s PFMLA leave.
The Court focused primarily on the plain language of the statute. “Section 2(e) of the PFMLA guarantees that ‘an employee who has taken family or medical leave shall be restored to the employee’s previous position or to an equivalent position, with the same status, pay, employment benefits, length-of-service credit and seniority as of the date of leave.’ Simply put, when an employee returns from PFMLA leave, he or she is to be put back in the same (or equivalent) position as when he or she left, with no loss of accrued length-of-service credit and vacation and sick time.”
Addressing the plaintiffs’ argument that Section 2(f) mandates continued benefit accrual, the Court explained its view that this section ensured that the rights an employee already possessed are not negatively impacted while on leave, but do not create a right to accrue new benefits during that period.
The Court further reasoned that interpreting Section 2(f) as mandating accrual would create a contradiction with Section 2(e), which states that an employee returning from leave should receive no less (and no more) of each benefit than they had at the start of their leave. The Court concluded that such an interpretation would lead to an internal contradiction within the statute, which the legislature did not intend. The Court determined that if the legislature intended to allow the accrual of benefits during PFMLA leave, “It specifically would have provided for it.”
Bodge v. Commonwealth, 241 N.E.3d 51 (Mass. 2024).