Employers Need to Know the Facts on Paid Family and Medical Leave

June 24, 2021

Avoiding the Pitfalls


Tim Netkovick calls it the “kicker” in the law — and it’s a kick that could bruise an unsuspecting employer.


The law in question is the state’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law, portions of which went into effect on Jan. 1, with others to follow on July 1. The law essentially makes Massachusetts the most generous state in the country when it comes to allowing workers to take leave for medical and family-care reasons.


And employers need to be careful how they respond to claims, said Netkovick, an attorney with the Royal Law Firm in Springfield.


“If somebody has utilized PFML, there is what I call a kicker in that statute that says, if there’s any adverse action taken against the employee within a certain period of time, then it’s presumed to be in retaliation,” he told BusinessWest.


Indeed, if an employee challenges an employer’s actions following leave taken under the PFML law, the burden is on the company to prove there was some justifiable reason for taking the adverse action that had nothing to do with the leave request.


Click here to read the full article published by BusinessWest.


Please contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions about PFML, or any other employment law topics at 413-586-2288.

June 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.
June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.