Three recent court decisions provide important reminders for businesses with employees in Massachusetts. One involves application of the Massachusetts Wage Act to remote workers; one clarifies potential liability for retaliation under the state anti-discrimination law; and one addresses liability for retaliation even when the action results in a pay increase for the plaintiff.
No. 1: Wage Act applies to out-of-state workers if employment has “significant relationship” with Massachusetts.
In a decision issued on April 1, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Peter Krupp helped to clarify the application of the state’s Wage Act to remote workers.
The case was brought by Abigail Dubois, a former sales associate for Staples, the Massachusetts-based office supply company. From August 2020 through the end of 2022, Ms. Dubois worked exclusively out of her Rhode Island home covering a sales territory spanning New York and New Jersey. During that time, she contributed to a large sale for which she believed she was owed, and improperly denied, commissions.
In early 2023, Ms. Dubois transferred to a Massachusetts sales territory and began to travel to a Massachusetts office a few times a month. She was fired in July of that year, allegedly because she became increasingly disgruntled about the unpaid commissions.
Ms. Dubois sued under the Massachusetts Wage Act, alleging that the company failed to pay her the commissions and retaliated against her for complaining about it. Staples sought summary judgment on the Wage Act claim, arguing that the law did not apply to Ms. Dubois given her extensive presence and work in states other than Massachusetts.
Judge Krupp disagreed. He noted that “[t]he Wage Act does not only apply to employees located within Massachusetts. It also protects out-of-state employees so long as Massachusetts, as compared to any other state, has the most significant relationship to plaintiff’s employment relationship with the employer.”
Then Judge Krupp found that Massachusetts had the most significant relationship to Ms. Dubois’ employment. Specifically, at the time that Staples “purportedly failed to pay the [owed] commissions and retaliated against plaintiff for demanding those commissions, plaintiff’s sales territory covered solely Massachusetts,” she traveled to Massachusetts regularly, and the decision to deny her the commissions was made by employees based in Massachusetts.
The decision is significant because of the highly distributed nature of today’s workforce and the substantial penalties for non-compliance mandated by the Wage Act, which imposes triple damages plus attorneys’ fees for non-payment – or even late payment – of earned wages, including commissions that are “definitely determined and ha[ve] become due and payable.”
Although bills have been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature that would provide employers an opportunity to cure any missed payments, until any such legislation passes, the Wage Act will continue to be problematic for businesses with employees who work in, or even have a significant employment relationship with, Massachusetts.
This case is an important reminder for companies doing business in Massachusetts to be mindful of their obligations under the Wage Act to employees who either live in or have other employment ties to the Commonwealth.
No. 2: Chapter 151B retaliation claim exists even if employee was not in a protected category
A May 2025 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit serves as an important reminder that the non-retaliation provisions of the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, Chapter 151B, can apply even to those who do not fall within one of the protected categories covered by the statute, in this case “handicap,” or disability.
In Moore v. Industrial Demolition LLC, plaintiff Eric Moore suffered an apparent workplace injury and returned to work with temporary restrictions. Although the employer’s chief operating officer agreed to comply with the restrictions, Mr. Moore’s supervisor allegedly became impatient with his limitations. After Mr. Moore refused to perform certain tasks, citing his doctor’s note, the supervisor yelled at him to “hit the gate and don’t come back.” Mr. Moore interpreted this as a termination. Although the chief executive officer urged Mr. Moore to “stay” and to “work it out” with the supervisor, Mr. Moore concluded this was unreasonable and did not return to work.
In his subsequent lawsuit, Mr. Moore claimed he was terminated in retaliation for seeking accommodation for his medical condition. The employer argued that the supervisor had not actually fired Mr. Moore, and in any case, that Mr. Moore’s request for accommodation was not protected as a matter of law because he was not “handicapped” within the meaning of Chapter 151B, since his impairment was temporary. The First Circuit rejected these arguments. As to the first, the Court noted the magic words “you’re fired” were not needed for a termination to occur. As to the second argument, the Court stressed that Mr. Moore reasonably believed he was entitled to accommodation when he spoke to the supervisor about his restrictions, bringing him within the protection of the anti-retaliation provision of Chapter 151B, regardless of whether his temporary condition constituted a disability.
This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive supervisor training on proper handling of accommodation requests and avoidance of retaliation. Massachusetts employers should train supervisors to escalate accommodation-related issues to Human Resources or other designated personnel rather than responding unilaterally. Even seemingly informal requests or discussions about temporary medical limitations can trigger anti-retaliation protections, for which it is essential to provide a measured response that complies with company policy and applicable law.
No. 3: Retaliation claim may proceed even if action resulted in pay raise
In our third decision, issued this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously held that an employee’s retaliation claim could proceed even though the employment decision at issue – a transfer – resulted in a pay increase for the employee.
The case, City of Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, involved a police sergeant who claimed that he was transferred from a day shift to one with irregular hours, including nights and weekends, in retaliation for his union activity. The city pointed out that it complied with the collective bargaining agreement and that the transfer resulted in more money for the sergeant. Thus, the city argued, the change was not an “adverse employment action” and it could not be liable for retaliation. The Court disagreed, noting that compliance with a CBA was relevant but “not dispositive of the question whether the employee has suffered an adverse employment action” for purposes of a claim of retaliation under the Commonwealth’s labor relations statute, Chapter 150E, which prohibits, among other things, retaliation for union activity.
In doing so, the Court referenced its 2019 decision in Yee v. Massachusetts State Police, which held that “an employer’s action is adverse” for purposes of a discrimination claim under the analogous Chapter 151B “when the action results in a ‘material disadvantage’ to the employee.” Applying this precedent, the Court said that “the city’s involuntary transfer” of the sergeant to irregular shifts could support a retaliation claim because it “objectively comprised an adverse employment action, despite the pay raise he received consistent with” the CBA.
Similarly to the First Circuit’s decision in Moore discussed above, this decision from Massachusetts’ highest court confirms that employers should tread carefully when making any changes to terms and conditions of employment when the employee has engaged in legally protected activity – whether union activity, a request for reasonable accommodation, or any other activity protected by applicable law.