Can Remote Employees Working Outside Massachusetts Sue Employers For Violations of Massachusetts Employment Laws? This Court Said “Yes.”

By John S. Gannon - Skoler Abbott P.C.

May 20, 2025

In today’s workplace, it is not uncommon for employees to partially or fully work remotely from a different state.  For example, employees working for a business located in the Commonwealth might live and work-from-home in a neighboring state.  This begs the question — can employees working from home in Connecticut, Rhode Island, or some other state take advantage of employee-friendly laws in Massachusetts, such as the  Massachusetts Wage Act, which awards successful plaintiffs with mandatory triple damages. This issue was recently examined by a Massachusetts Superior Court in a case involving an employee living outside Massachusetts who was working remotely for a Massachusetts-based employer.  Here is what you need to know.

Background

The plaintiff in this case lived and worked for the defendant/employer from her home in Rhode Island.  Toward the end of her employment, there was a dispute over unpaid commissions allegedly due to the plaintiff.  When her employment ended, the plaintiff sued her former employer alleging that she was not paid commissions that were due to her under the Massachusetts Wage Act. The plaintiff also claimed she was retaliated against in violation of the Wage Act for complaining about not receiving those commissions.

The Decision

The defendant/employer sought to dismiss the Wage Act claims arguing that the Massachusetts Wage Act did not apply to this dispute, and instead Rhode Island law should control.  In support of this argument, the defendant/employer pointed to the fact that the plaintiff worked in Rhode Island, used a Rhode Island phone number for work, received her wages via direct deposit to her bank account in Rhode Island, received her final pay stub at her Rhode Island address, paid Rhode Island taxes, and even claimed Rhode Island unemployment benefits after termination.

Despite this, the court ruled that Massachusetts law should apply.  The court pointed out that the plaintiff’s sales territory — at least at the of end her employment — covered solely Massachusetts.  As a result, she was traveling to her employer’s office in Massachusetts weekly or bi-weekly.  In addition, and what may have been one of the more important facts in the eyes of the court, the plaintiff signed an employment agreement with the defendant/employer at the beginning of her employment that contained a provision stating Massachusetts law applied to the agreement.  Although that employment agreement did not cover the payment of commissions (instead, it addressed non-competition and confidentiality obligations), by including a  Massachusetts choice-of-law provision in the non-compete/confidentiality agreement, the defendant/employer apparently contemplated that Massachusetts law would apply to other aspects of the employment relationship.

Takeaways

As readers are aware, the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (“PFML”) law are two of the most employee-friendly laws in the entire country. Because of this, to the extent possible, employers should steer clear of litigation related to these laws.  Obviously, this is hard to do when employees with purported Wage Act or PFML claims are working in the state of Massachusetts.  However, this becomes easier with employees working remotely outside the Commonwealth.  To help ensure that the employee-friendly laws of Massachusetts do not extend to employment relationships outside the Commonwealth, employers should make it clear in offer letters and other employment-related documents and agreements that the law of the employee’s home state applies to the employment relationship.  The employer should also provide remote employees living in another state with handbook supplements that explain the employment laws of their home state.  Finally, employers should have all employment-related agreements reviewed by employment counsel to ensure the most appropriate choice-of-law provisions are in place.

www.skoler-abbott.com