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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways 1. Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. 2. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. 3. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process . If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: