Global NAPs v. Awiszus et al

(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)

• Opposing Expansion of Employer Liability under the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act

This is the same issue that arose in Stephens v. Global NAPs, for which NELF filed an amicus brief in the Appeals Court in 2006.  The case challenges a guideline of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) concerning an employer’s liability under the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act (“MMLA”), G. L. c. 149, § 105D.  The MMLA requires that employees be provided with eight weeks of unpaid maternity leave and reinstatement to their positions at the end of the eight weeks.  The MMLA expressly allows employers to agree to more generous benefits, such as a longer leave period.  An employer who violates the MMLA’s requirement of eight weeks’ leave and reinstatement is subject to extensive statutory remedies, including damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under c. 151B.  An MCAD guideline provides that, when an employer agrees to a longer leave period, the statutory remedies will apply in the event of breach of that agreement unless the employer gives advance written notice that full MMLA rights will not apply.   The plaintiff in Stephens. v. Global NAPs was terminated from her job after taking a maternity leave of 11 weeks.  The jury found that Global NAPs had violated an agreement that Stephens could take an 11-week leave and, following instructions based on the MCAD guideline, awarded Stephens statutory punitive and emotional distress damages.  In the appeal of that decision, NELF filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts arguing that, by extending the MMLA’s liability provisions to the entire duration of an agreed-upon leave (unless an employer gives advance written notice that the MMLA will not apply), the MCAD guideline contravenes the unambiguous eight-week requirement of the MMLA, discourages the flexibility in private arrangements that the MMLA sought to encourage, and transforms a common law claim for breach of contract into an MMLA violation.   In a decision rendered on November 8, 2007, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the appeal was untimely and, therefore, did not address NELF’s arguments.  Global NAPS then filed a legal malpractice claim against trial counsel for failure to file a timely appeal.  In the malpractice case, there was no real dispute that the appeal was untimely.  The real question was whether the appeal would have succeeded on the merits if it had been timely filed.  Consequently, the Superior Court in the malpractice case had to decide how the Appeals Court would have ruled on the MMLA claim in Stephens v. Global NAPs.  Recognizing the issue as a close one, the Superior Court affirmed the original Superior Court Judge’s decision that deferred to the MCAD guideline.  The SJC has taken the case for direct appellate review and has issued an amicus announcement on the same issue.  NELF and AIM have filed an amicus brief substantially similar to the brief first filed in 2006, again arguing that the MMLA does not apply to an agreed-up leave that exceeds the statutory eight weeks, and that therefore the MCAD guideline is invalid.