Royal

Out-of-State Resident Sues Massachusetts Company on Massachusetts Law

May 31, 2023

The residual impact of COVID-19 has seen remote employment rise at an exponential rate. With that, litigation encapsulating remote employment has also risen.


In Wilson v. Recorded Future, Inc., et al., a record company and various high-ranking employees named in the complaint (Defendants), sought dismissal of the employee’s (Plaintiff) claims under the Fair Employment Practices Law, G.L.c. 151B, §4(1B), as well as the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, §148.


Here, the Defendants made the argument that Massachusetts did not have the “most significant” relationship to the employment of the Plaintiff, a Virginia resident.


The Plaintiff countered, stating that he regularly communicated with the Massachusetts office, made routine visits to the Massachusetts office, and that decisions at issue were settled in Massachusetts.

Even though the Plaintiff resided in another state, did not hold himself out to be in Massachusetts to customers, and did not work with supervisors in Massachusetts, the U.S. District Court held that there was enough for the discrimination claim to survive the Defendants’ motion.


Moreover, the judge noted that there is no requirement that the Plaintiff reside or work in Massachusetts to be afforded the Wage Act’s protections.


The recent denial of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is yet another reminder to Massachusetts employers that it may be more difficult to avoid the employee-friendly provisions of the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law and the Massachusetts Wage Act, even if their employees are out-of-state.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: