May 24, 2012

Massachusetts Wage Act: New Warning to Employers Everywhere

Massachusetts Wage Act May Extend to Employees Living and Working Elsewhere -- Out-of-State Employees May Sue Officers Personally for Mandatory Triple Damages, Attorneys Fees and Costs

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge recently extended the reach of the Massachusetts Wage Act – including its provisions for officer liability, mandatory triple damages, attorneys fees and costs – to an employee who lives and works in Florida. The judge found that the employee had “sufficient contacts” with Massachusetts during his employment, and was thus entitled to protection of its Wage Act.

In Dow v. Casale, a former sales employee of a small, failed Massachusetts company sued three former executives personally in Massachusetts, alleging they owed him more than $100,000 in commissions he earned prior to the company’s failure. The executives argued that Massachusetts law did not apply because the employee lived and worked in Florida. The court disagreed and held that the Wage Act “was designed to regulate the actions of Massachusetts employers, regardless of where their employees work.”

The judge found the following activities established “more than sufficient contacts” with the Commonwealth to afford the employee the protection of the its Wage Act:

  • The salesman conducted his business largely via the internet, which was paid for by the Massachusetts employer
  • His business cards listed the company’s Massachusetts address, phone number and fax number
  • He had customers in Massachusetts and visited them about 20 times over two years
  • He was in daily contact with his supervisor in Massachusetts
  • All sales paperwork was generated in Massachusetts
  • All customer purchase orders were sent to Massachusetts, invoices were then sent to customers from Massachusetts and customers sent their payments to Massachusetts

In light of this decision, out of state employers may want to consider taking steps to avoid the type of “sufficient contacts” with Massachusetts that might expose them and their officers to unfavorable liabilities and penalties under the Massachusetts Wage Act.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Andrew C. Liazos is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in the Firm’s Boston office. Andrew heads the Firm's Executive Compensation Group and the Boston Employee Benefits Practice.

Andrew regularly represents Fortune 500 companies, public companies, large closely held businesses and compensation committees on all aspects of executive compensation, ERISA fiduciary matters, employee benefits in business transactions and bankruptcy, and employee stock ownership plans. He also counsels executives in employment agreement and joint venture...

617 535 4038

About the Author

Partner

Heather Egan Sussman is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Boston office.  She brings a practical, business-sense approach to solving workplace issues that helps clients efficiently and effectively manage every kind of HR and privacy-related risk.  Heather is Co-Chair of the Firm’s Global Data Privacy Affinity Group and a Certified Information Privacy Professional.

617-535-4177

Contributors

Associate

 

Sabrina E. Dunlap is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Boston office.  She focuses her practice on data privacy.  Sabrina is a Certified Information Privacy Professional.

617-535-4014

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.