top of page
Search
Writer's pictureDaniel O'Connor

Chaloff v. Westwood - Appeals Court enforces parental leave law

In Pauline Chaloff v. Westwood Public Schools, the Appeals Court addressed whether a teacher’s protected parental leave affects eligibility for "professional teacher status" (PTS) under Massachusetts law. Pauline Chaloff, who taught for four years at Westwood Public Schools, took 56 days of maternity leave in her second year. When Chaloff approached the end of her third year, which would typically make her eligible for PTS, Westwood informed her that her parental leave meant she had to complete an additional full school year to qualify for this status. Westwood terminated her after her fourth year and Chaloff sought arbitration, but the arbitrator sided with Westwood, and a Superior Court judge later upheld this decision. Chaloff then appealed and the Appeals Court reversed.


Westwood hired Chaloff for the 2016-2017 school year, renewing her contract annually. In her second year, she took 56 days of parental leave under G.L. c. 149, § 105D, which guarantees that parental leave does not affect an employee’s seniority or service credit. However, Westwood argued that this time on leave disrupted Chaloff’s consecutive service requirement, necessitating an additional year to qualify for PTS, a designation that protects teachers from adverse employment actions.


The court first addressed the standard of review related to an arbitration decision under G.L. c. 71, § 42 and determined that in issues of public law, the court does not afford the same level of deference to the arbitrator.


The case centered on Massachusetts laws G.L. c. 71, § 41 (which provides PTS to teachers with three consecutive years of service) and G.L. c. 149, § 105D (which protects parental leave rights, ensuring such leave does not impact service credit). Massachusetts precedent, notably Solomon v. School Committee of Boston, had previously established that protected leave does not disrupt "consecutive school years" for tenure purposes, though it did not address whether additional time was required to make up for leave taken.


In Chaloff, the Appeals Court conducted a de novo review, evaluating whether the Superior Court's and arbitrator's interpretations aligned with public policy and statutory requirements.


The court ruled that Westwood’s interpretation effectively penalized Chaloff for taking protected parental leave, contrary to G.L. c. 149, § 105D’s mandate. The statute protects an employee’s right to parental leave without affecting service credit, so the requirement to work an additional year was deemed a penalty for exercising this right.


The court concluded that the statutory "three consecutive school years" requirement could be satisfied through aggregation, allowing Chaloff to combine her time worked in her third and fourth years to meet the threshold. The court cited Solomon, which rejected the idea that protected leave breaks the continuity of service necessary for tenure.


Westwood’s approach was deemed inconsistent with Massachusetts’ public policy, which aims to protect the employment rights of teachers who take protected leave. This policy encourages teachers to balance family and work responsibilities without risking employment penalties.


Westwood argued that calculating PTS eligibility using less than full school years would complicate personnel management and disrupt the teacher evaluation cycle. The court dismissed this, stating that administrative convenience cannot override statutory rights. School systems must accommodate protected leave within their evaluation procedures without penalizing employees.


The Appeals Court vacated the arbitration award and reversed the Superior Court judgment, holding that Chaloff met the PTS requirements under Massachusetts law. This decision underscores the court’s support for protecting parental leave rights and aligning school administrative practices with state laws that prevent penalties against employees who take protected leave.


2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page