Judge Denies Island Teachers' Lawsuit Against Town Over Paid Family & Medical Leave

Superior Court Judge Elaine M. Buckley has denied a lawsuit filed by two Nantucket Public School teachers in May of 2025 against the town in Nantucket Superior Court for its failure to implement the Paid Family & Medical Leave Act after it was approved in the form of Article 37 by voters during the 2024 Annual Town Meeting.

The lawsuit was filed by the late Page Martineau (who passed away in November due to cancer) and teacher Merrill Mason. Their request was for relief for the time they were forced to use sick days due to cancer treatments, surgeries, and maternity leave. Martineau had been a teacher for the public schools since 2003, and Mason has been a teacher since 2014. The lawsuit describes the town’s failure to implement Chapter 175M, which would grant teachers paid family and medical leave.

“According to the town, because the town is a single employer, all unions must unanimously agree to adopt Chapter 175M for it to be implemented, which they did not,” Buckley wrote in her decision, which was issued on Wednesday. “The court agrees.”

Island voters passed Article 37 by a margin of 380-112 at the 2024 Town Meeting, which proposed adopting Chapter 175M. The law permits an eligible employee to take certain qualified leaves of absence, including leave to recover from illness. The program is funded by premiums paid by employees and private employers. While towns are not required to participate in the program, they can opt in by a vote of the governing body – which in this case was a town meeting vote.

Town manager Libby Gibson subsequently reached out to each of the unions on July 2^nd, 2024, about implementing Chapter 175M and expressed the opinion that changes or additions to employee benefits would require collective bargaining under Chapter 150E.

Superintendent Beth Hallett submitted a memorandum on August 22^nd of 2024, on behalf of the School Committee to the Nantucket Teachers Association president and vice president, informing them that the School Committee wanted to hold information sessions with representatives from the union's leadership regarding Chapter 175M implementation.

“On September 12, 2024, the Town reached out to all of its unions to confirm their positions on implementation of Chapter 175M,” Buckley wrote. “Multiple unions responded by declining to bargain regarding the terms of implementation of Chapter 175M.”

The teachers argued in their lawsuit that once Article 37 was adopted, the town was obligated to implement Chapter 175M, regardless of whether the teachers’ union, or any union, had agreed to its implementation or bargained for the terms of its implementation pursuant to Chapter 150E (Massachusetts public employee collective bargaining law). The town argued that bargaining under Chapter 150E was required first since it is a single employer and would need to implement Chapter 175M with all unions.

Buckley cited several cases as support for her verdict in the case, notably referencing Middleborough Gas & Electric Department v. Town of Middleborough in the written decision. In the Middleborough case, it was determined that providing reimbursement for eye exams and prescription eyeglasses was a violation of the provisions of Chapter 32B because the town didn’t offer the same benefits/relief to all its union employees. That case was decided in favor of the town.

“Regardless of whether the Town (of Nantucket) properly required uniformity among all unions, it could not implement the benefits of Chapter 175M, which would impact all members of the plaintiffs' bargaining unit, without first bargaining with the Union,” Buckley said. “The court concludes that the plain language of Chapter 175M required the Town Meeting to pass Article 37 as an initial step in the process of implementing Chapter 175M benefits.”

In Buckley’s memorandum, she said even if the town was incorrect to require uniform adoption of Chapter 175M terms by all unions, Martineau and Mason lack individual standing to seek individual relief.

“The plaintiffs are members of a bargaining unit represented by the Union and therefore lack individual standing to seek relief that imposes Chapter 175M adoption against all members of their bargaining unit,” Buckley says. “Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings must be denied.”

Martineau was diagnosed with breast cancer in July of 2024 and had to begin taking intermittent medical leave at the beginning of the 2024 school year on September 5^th, 2024. Her cancer returned in 2025 and led to her passing just over six months after the lawsuit was filed.

Martineau stated in the lawsuit that she worked half days from home on lesson planning and grading throughout the first six weeks of leave.

“Plaintiff Martineau had a port surgically implanted on October 2, 2024, in order to begin chemotherapy,” the court documents say. “Plaintiff Martineau underwent a course of chemotherapy from October 22, 2024, to January 14, 2025. Plaintiff Martineau physically returned to work in the school building the same week she began chemotherapy. During weeks that Plaintiff Martineau was undergoing chemotherapy, she worked a full day on Monday, then half days from home Tuesday through Friday. On weeks when Plaintiff Martineau was not undergoing chemotherapy, she worked the entire week as normal.

“Due to the Town’s refusal to implement the PFML, Plaintiff Martineau did not have the job protections and anti-retaliation protections provided by that statute and was forced to use her accrued sick leave,” the lawsuit adds.

Mason was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2016 and had to depend on the sick leave bank through her union, although it was not medically advisable. The suit adds that Mason also scheduled a surgical procedure during a February school vacation week in order to avoid using more sick days or sick bank leave.

“Plaintiff Mason had a myomectomy on September 14, 2023,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff Mason’s medical providers recommended that she take off two weeks from work to recover. Plaintiff Mason returned to work after using only one week of sick days to recover, from September 18 to September 22, 2023. She was planning to get pregnant in the near future, so she wanted to save her remaining sick days a future maternity leave.”

Mason began her maternity leave on January 30, 2025, the same day she gave birth, and used 60 sick days for her maternity leave. She was scheduled to return to work on May 12, 2025.

“Plaintiff Mason had 76 sick days accrued from her long period of service with the Nantucket Public Schools before her maternity leave,” the lawsuit says. “After her leave, she will have only 16 days remaining for any unforeseen medical complications that may arise for her or her daughter.”