Click here to jump to the interactive version of this digest where you can ask real-time questions.
Where two defendants who served on an employer’s board have moved to dismiss a claim brought against them under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, their motion should be allowed because the statute does not extend liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents, nor did the Legislature intend to establish liability for aiding and abetting a violation of the statute.
“Plaintiff Jackson Laughlin brings this action against defendants BinStar, Inc., a Delaware corporation (‘BinStar DE’); BinStar, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (‘BinStar MA’); BinStar’s D&O insurance carrier; and alleged investors or directors in BinStar, including Alpaca Ventures (‘Alpaca’), Aubrie Pagano (‘Pagano’), Jason Harrow (‘Harrow’), and Ryan Freedman (‘Freedman’), alleging a pattern of betrayals and self-dealing that led to BinStar’s dissolution and that harmed plaintiff. …
“… Unlike the Wage Act, which was at issue in Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, 478 Mass. 551, 552-553, 558-566 (2017), the PFML statute does not extend liability to a corporate employer’s officers or agents. … Because no such language is used in Chapter 151A or the PMFL statute, I decline to import it. The statutory requirement to provide PFML leave in appropriate cases, and the statutory prohibition of discrimination against an employee who exercises his rights under the PFML statute, rest on the employer....
"Here is a follow-up video capturing a classic moment from the Xi-Trump summit: While Xi Jinping was away using the restroom, Trump casually glanced through a small notebook Xi had left on the tab...