172 | Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. © 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP Since Dow, courts have engaged in a fact-specific analysis to determine whether the Wage Act can apply to an out-of-state plaintiff. In one case, the First Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer because the plaintiff, a Florida-based employee, managed customer relationships more often from Florida.1055 In another case, the Superior Court held that an Illinois-based employee could not bring a claim under the Wage Act because he reported to managers based outside of Massachusetts, performed no work in Massachusetts and had no reason to travel to the state, except for training.1056 Despite the decision in Dow, courts have rejected efforts to extend the Wage Act to individuals working outside of the United States.1057 There is a presumption against the extraterritorial application of a statute in the international context, absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary.1058 B. Potential Defendants Under The Wage Act, Including Individual Liability Obviously, the entity that employs (or employed) the plaintiff can be sued for wage and hour violations. In addition, a joint employer can be joint and severally liable for such violations.1059 An “alter ego” of the nominal employer can also be held liable.1060 This is a veil-piercing theory by which courts disregard the general principle that corporations are separate from one another.1061 Massachusetts law also recognizes that one entity (Company A) can be found to the be the employer of another entity’s employees if Company A engages in a scheme designed to do an “end-run” around its wage obligations.1062 In addition to corporate liability, the Wage Act imposes personal civil and criminal liability on certain individuals. Specifically, “[t]he president and treasurer of a corporation and any officers or agents having the management of such corporation” can face individual liability for wage and hour violations in Massachusetts.1063 Generally, board members of a corporation and investors may not be held liable under the Wage Act, absent evidence that they were empowered to act individually 1055 Viscito v. Nat'l Plan. Corp., 34 F.4th 78, 83-86 (1st Cir. 2022). 1056 Musachia v Abiomed, Inc., No. 2377CV00210-B, 2023 WL 9315384, *4 (Mass. Super. Dec. 12, 2023). 1057 See, e.g., Hadfield v. A.W. Chesterson Co., Civ. No. 20084382, 2009 WL 3085921, *2 (Mass. Super. Sept. 15, 2009) (holding that Wage Act did not apply to plaintiff working in Africa); Lockley v. StudentCity.com, Civ. No, SUCV201801293BLS2, 2019 WL 7753749, *2-3 (Mass. Super. Dec. 19, 2019) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff was a resident of Colorado and worked in the Bahamas). 1058 See Taylor v. Eastern Connection Op., Inc., 465 Mass. 191, 198 & n.9 (2013) (describing presumption but not expressly deciding the issue). 1059 See Joint Employment, Section IX. 1060 See Jinks v. Credico, Inc., 488 Mass. 691, 697-98. 1061 Id. 1062 Id. 1063 M.G.L. ch. 149, § 148.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4