Ten Days’ Paid Leave May Be Available for All Full-Time Workers

March 28, 2024

By: Trevor Brice, Esq.


For many Americans, the possible leave that can be taken under state and federal leave has been expanded and extended so that many employees are covered by state and federal leave laws. However, this coverage has not extended to all full-time U.S. employees. A new bill in Congress seeks to change this. On March 20, 2024, several House Democrats announced the introduction of the Protected Time Off (“PTO) Act to guarantee 10 paid days off from work each year for full-time workers.


The proposal ensures that all full-time employees will earn no less than two weeks of annual paid leave per year, in addition to any employer-provided or legal required paid sick or family leave, to be used for any reason at the employees’ standard pay rate. Employers must not interfere with or discriminate against workers who seek to take annual paid time off.


Possible Implications for Employers under the PTO Act


The PTO Act offers two weeks of paid time off to any full-time employee for any reason. This means that employers will have to offer this time off as long as employees provide two weeks’ notice, which is required under the law. Employers with surge seasons will be particularly affected by this act, because, as long as notice is provided, employers cannot deny the time off, unless the surge season qualifies as an emergency under the Act. An employer may place limited, reasonable restrictions regarding the scheduling of paid annual leave and may reject a scheduling request for such leave for a bona fide business reason, so long as the employer provides other reasonable alternative times for the employee to schedule such leave. However, the definition of reasonable alternative times would have to be tested in court, as it is not defined in the pending legislation.


Employees would begin to accrue paid leave as soon as their employment begins and employers must provide each employee with no less no less than 1 hour of paid annual leave for every 25 hours worked, for up to 80 total hours. Employees can start using PTO Act leave on the 60th day of their employment.


Employers will need to compensate employees at the same rate that they would have been paid had the employees not used leave. Further, employees are allowed to carry over up to 40 hours of leave year to year and can cash out any unused paid annual leave at the separation of employment. If employers violate the PTO Act, employers may be responsible for lost wages, interest, liquidated (double) damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. While an individual bringing a claim under the PTO Act may not scare employers, as it could be on the hook for up to four weeks of pay plus attorney’s fees and costs at maximum, a class action on behalf of multiple employees could certainly be something that employers fear.


Takeaways


The PTO Act, while introduced in the House, is not likely to advance and become law with bipartisan support. However, it is of note that legislators feel comfortable advancing legislation that would give paid leave to all full-time employees. In this sense, it is more likely that a lesser version of the PTO Act could be passed in the coming months and years, which could burden employers with more regulation related to paid leave. As always, if an employer has questions or concerns about the utilization of paid leave and the application of new potential laws like the PTO Act, it is prudent to seek legal counsel.


Trevor Brice is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.

Can I Fire Someone for That? Common Myths That Get Employers Sued

By The Royal Law Firm • August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

By The Royal Law Firm • August 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 mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.