Legal-aid organizations, worker centers and advocates told the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development that the Massachusetts Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML) program needs technical fixes to improve access, increase transparency and ensure language access.

Witnesses asked the committee to report favorably on Senate Bill 13-51 and House Bill 2,110, which would (1) require employers to provide PFML notice and an application packet at the time an employee requests leave as well as at hire, and (2) require the Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML) to publish disaggregated demographic data for the full applicant pool—including denied claims—not just approved applications.

"Detailed disaggregated data is essential to accurately assess whether the program is providing equitable access," Molly Weston Williamson of the Center for American Progress told the committee. Legal-aid attorneys and Mass Law Reform witnesses added that currently DFML reports demographics for approved claims only; they said reporting the demographics of denied applicants is necessary to identify access gaps.

Multiple community organizers and workers described real cases in which language barriers, late or confusing employer notices, or overly lengthy paperwork delayed benefits. Vilma (represented through a live interpreter) described getting COVID-19 in 2022 while working for a cleaning company and not learning about PFML until she contacted a worker center: "I didn't know the program existed until I connected with the Lynn Worker Center, where they told me about the benefit and helped me apply," she said. Salvador Sandoval said he suffered a stroke and waited six months for retroactive benefits because neither employer notified him when he needed leave.

Witnesses recommended a simple operational fix: require employers to hand employees the standard leave-certification form and instructions when the employee notifies the employer of a need for leave, not just at hiring. Advocates said that mirrors federal FMLA practice and other states' paid-leave programs.

Advocates also requested expanded public education by DFML, improvements to the leave-certification process for medical providers and clarified statutory definitions to ensure covered contract workers are treated consistently with legislative intent. David McKenna of Greater Boston Legal Services and Marlena Ichabo of Mass Law Reform said small technical changes—removing references to an outdated IRS form and clarifying covered-contractor definitions—would restore benefits to workers the statute’s drafters intended to cover.

Committee members asked about fund solvency and utilization; witnesses said utilization has grown approximately 25% year-over-year and that program rates have been adjusted annually by DFML. No committee action or vote occurred during the hearing.

Supporters asked the committee for a favorable report to reduce administrative barriers and expand outreach to ensure workers who pay into the trust can actually access benefits when they need them.