Employment – Choice of law – Remote work

Listen to this article

Where a defendant university in Massachusetts has moved to dismiss a Wage Act complaint brought by a Rhode Island plaintiff who worked remotely, the motion should be denied because Massachusetts, rather than Rhode Island, has the “more significant relationship” to the plaintiff’s employment.

“Plaintiff Lydia Curtin-Wilding filed this putative class action against defendant Trustees of Boston University (BU). She alleges that BU failed to timely pay her wages on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, §148 (Wage Act). …

“BU contends that Curtin-Wilding ‘cannot avail herself’ of the Wage Act because she ‘does not have standing’ as a Rhode Island resident who worked remotely for BU. … The application of the Wage Act to extraterritorial employees of a Massachusetts-based employer is determined by a choice-of-law analysis — in particular, which state has ‘the more significant relationship’ to the plaintiff’s employment. …

“At this stage, the court finds that Massachusetts, rather than Rhode Island, has the ‘more significant relationship’ to Curtin-Wilding’s employment. … Here, Curtin-Wilding is employed by BU, ‘a leading private research institution with two primary campuses in the heart of Boston’ and a principal place of business in Massachusetts. … Although Curtin-Wilding allegedly teaches an online program, she educates a student body which is enrolled at the Massachusetts-based BU campuses. …”

Curtin-Wilding v. Trustees of Boston University (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-287-25) (6 pages) (Stearns, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-10432-RGS) (May 23, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.