Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXII Chapter 175M
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9 (2026)

Prohibited acts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 9. (a) It shall be unlawful for any employer to retaliate by discharging, firing, suspending, expelling, disciplining, through the application of attendance policies or otherwise, threatening or in any other manner discriminating against an employee for exercising any right to which such employee is entitled under this chapter or with the purpose of interfering with the exercise of any right to which such employee is entitled under this chapter.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any employer to retaliate by discharging, firing, suspending, expelling, disciplining, through the application of attendance policies or otherwise, threatening or in any other manner discriminating against an employee who has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or related to this section, has testified or is about to testify in an inquiry or proceeding or has given or is about to give information connected to any inquiry or proceeding relating to this section.

(c) Any negative change in the seniority, status, employment benefits, pay or other terms or conditions of employment of an employee which occurs any time during a leave taken by an employee under this chapter, or during the 6 month period following an employee's leave or restoration to a position pursuant to this section, or of an employee who has participated in proceedings or inquiries pursuant to this section within 6 months of the termination of proceedings shall be presumed to be retaliation under this section. Such presumption shall be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that such employer's action was not retaliation against the employee and that the employer had sufficient independent justification for taking such action and would have in fact taken such action in the same manner and at the same time the action was taken, regardless of the employee's use of leave, restoration to a position or participation in proceedings or inquiries as described in this subsection. An employer found to have threatened, coerced or taken reprisal against any employee pursuant to this subsection shall rescind any adverse alteration in the terms of employment for such employee and shall offer reinstatement to any terminated employee and shall also be liable in an action brought under subsection (d).

(d) An employee or former employee aggrieved by a violation of this section or subsections (e) and (f) of section 2 of this chapter may, not more than 3 years after the violation occurs, institute a civil action in the superior court. A party to the action shall be entitled to a jury trial. All remedies available in common law tort actions shall be available to prevailing plaintiffs and shall be in addition to any legal or equitable relief provided in this section. The court may: (i) issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary or permanent injunctions to restrain continued violations of this section; (ii) reinstate the employee to the same position held before the violation or to an equivalent position; (iii) reinstate full fringe benefits and seniority rights to the employee; (iv) compensate the employee for 3 times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration and the interest thereon; and (v) order payment by the employer of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2022–2026 · leading case: Germoso (D. Mass. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Germoso (D. Mass. 2026). · cites it 4× “Count III: Retaliation in Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9 Defendant argues that the Complaint “establishes a clearly legitimate reason for Ms.”
Wright v. Micro Focus, LLC (D. Mass. 2025). · cites it 2× “For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion.”
Kuc v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (D. Mass. 2022). “152, § 75B(2) (prohibiting retaliation against employees who file worker’s compensation claims); Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 175M, § 9(a) (prohibiting retaliation against employees who take paid family or medical leave).”
Mendes v. WinnCompanies LLC (D. Mass. 2023). “The proposed Second Amended Complaint would remove Counts 6, 7, 10, and 12; add an additional cause of action against WinnCompanies for violation of the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9 (new Count 8); and include various additional…”
Mendes v. WinnCompanies LLC (D. Mass. 2023). “149, § 105A, against WinnCompanies, (8) violation of the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9, against WinnCompanies, and (9) retaliation in violation of 42 U.”
Aimee Bodge & Others v. Commonwealth & Others (Mass. 2024). “The plaintiffs also argue our interpretation contravenes G. L. c. 175M, § 9 (c), which provides that, while on leave, "[a]ny negative change in the seniority, status, employment benefits, pay or other terms or conditions of employment .”
Martins v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc. (D. Mass. 2025). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M § 9(d). It is DENIED IN PART as to the second leave because the Complaint alleges he took leave pursuant to that statute and the leave falls within the three year period.”
Yuan v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “149, § 148C (Counts I-III), the Massachusetts Paid Family 27 and Medical Leave statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9 (Count IV), the Massachusetts Wage 1 Act, Mass.”
Tardiff v. Laborers Int'l Union of North Am., Local 609 (D. Mass. 2025). “" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9. This language closely parallels the Family and Medical Leave Act’s ("FMLA") interference provision, which similarly states that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to…”
Byrd v. Mott Macdonald Grp. Inc (D. Me. 2025). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9(a). Because the PFML has similar language and objectives as FMLA and Byrd makes no argument for any independent methods of evaluating his claims under PFML, see ECF No.”
Samah (D. Mass. 2026). “Samah asserts claims for retaliation in violation of M.G.L. c. 175M, § 9 (Count 1); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9(a) — 2 cases
Kuc v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (D. Mass. 2022). “152, § 75B(2) (prohibiting retaliation against employees who file worker’s compensation claims); Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 175M, § 9(a) (prohibiting retaliation against employees who take paid family or medical leave).”
Byrd v. Mott Macdonald Grp. Inc (D. Me. 2025). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9(a). Because the PFML has similar language and objectives as FMLA and Byrd makes no argument for any independent methods of evaluating his claims under PFML, see ECF No.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9(c) — 2 cases
Wright v. Micro Focus, LLC (D. Mass. 2025). “For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion.”
Germoso (D. Mass. 2026). “Count III: Retaliation in Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9 Defendant argues that the Complaint “establishes a clearly legitimate reason for Ms.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9(d) — 1 case
Martins v. Johnson & Johnson Servs., Inc. (D. Mass. 2025). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M § 9(d). It is DENIED IN PART as to the second leave because the Complaint alleges he took leave pursuant to that statute and the leave falls within the three year period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.