Beware: Remote Workers Can Sue Under Employer’s State Law

July 26, 2023

Since the dawn of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers in Massachusetts have resorted to employing workers that live and work remotely outside of the Commonwealth. While employers may assume that these remote employees cannot sue or will not be able to use the law of the Commonwealth to pursue potential claims, courts have said the opposite, allowing remote employees to make use of the laws of the state in which the employer is headquartered.

Frances Yvonne Schulman v. Zeotis, Inc. et al.


In a recent case out of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Plaintiff Frances Yvonne Schulman (“Schulman”), a remote worker, sued her employer in New Jersey, alleging that she received less pay than certain male co-workers, making for a potential gender discrimination case under New Jersey anti-discrimination laws. However, the Defendant employer, Zeotis, Inc. (“Zeotis”) moved to dismiss Schulman’s lawsuit, stating that she could not make use of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws because she did not live or work in New Jersey. In fact, Schulman lived and worked exclusively in New Hampshire during her entire employment with Zoetis.



Despite Schulman’s lack of connection to New Jersey, the court denied Zeotis’ motion to dismiss. The court’s reasoning centered on the fact that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) protected “all persons” and did not limit the definition of person to New Jersey residents or employees. The NJLAD is additionally a remedial legislation that drafters intended courts to liberally construe in favor of employees. So, if a New Jersey company, through its New Jersey officials, discriminates in the workplace, those decisions can impact anyone regardless of location. These were actions that the NJLAD was designed to protect, and the main reasoning for the court’s denial of Zeotis’ motion to dismiss.


Though the court ruled the NJLAD could apply to Schulman, the court also noted that there were other factors that should be considered before applying the NJLAD. If the law of the state that the remote worker works in does not conflict with the employer’s state law, then this choice of law does not need to be considered. However, if they are materially different, then the court needs to apply choice of law factors to determine which state’s laws would apply to a remote worker’s claims. These choice of law factors include the state law’s coverage based on number of employees, statutory caps on damages, statutes of limitations and definitions that would limit the coverage of remote workers under the law.


Massachusetts Employer Implications

M.G.L. 151(b), Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination law, similar to the NJLAD, does not limit its application to only Massachusetts employees. Indeed, M.G.L. 151(b) defines a person protected under the act to be “one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, and the commonwealth and all political subdivisions, boards, and commissions thereof.” M.G.L. 151(b(1). Therefore, the reasoning in Schulman could be used to enforce M.G.L. 151(b) for remote workers who do not live or work in Massachusetts. However, given that there could be a choice of law question between Massachusetts and the remote worker’s state laws, it is prudent to consult an attorney to determine which state’s law would apply if any of the company’s remote employees were to file suit.


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.


Good Faith Engagement with ADA Accommodations Makes all the Difference

June 19, 2025
Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines, LLC Leroy Dooley appealed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada decision to grant Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants. Dooley alleged in his original suit that Nevada Gold Mines, LLC “NGM” violated The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under failure to accommodate when they made the decision to terminate his employment after his medical leave ended. Before having to go on medical leave, Dooley worked as a Process Maintenance Tech 6. The Tech 6 role is physically demanding. An essential function of the Tech 6 role included repairing ore-processing equipment, a task that required lifting and carrying up to sixty pounds, frequently twisting, and occasionally stooping, kneeling, and crawling. Dooley’s return to work form provided by his doctor indicated he could not lift more than ten pounds, carry more than fifteen pounds, bend, squat, or twist. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Summary Judgement in favor of the Defendants. Restructuring His Position Dooley asserts that NGM could have restructured his position and reassigned repairing ore-processing equipment to other technicians. The court concedes that role restructuring is generally a reasonable accommodation however, an employer is not required “to exempt an employee from performing essential functions or to reallocate essential functions to other employees.” Dark, 451 F.3d at 1089. Dooley also alleged that NGM could have reduced his hours as part of an accommodation while NGM continued to assert that even working part time Dooley would need to repair ore-processing equipment, an action he was still not cleared to do by his doctor even on a part time basis. Request for Assistive Equipment Dooley argued that NGM should have allowed him to use existing workplace equipment like cranes, forklifts, and dollies as assistive equipment to perform his role. Providing such equipment could typically be an accommodation but Dooley provided no evidence that he could operate the referenced equipment with his medical restrictions. Reassignment Dooley alleges that he was denied reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because he was denied reassignment to an open lab position in April 2018. However, Dooley was only cleared to work in December 2018 when the position was no longer open. NGM had other roles open at that time, and it is an undisputed fact that Dooley turned reassignment to those positions down. Per Wellington v. Lyon Cnty. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) “there is no duty to create a new position for the disabled employee." Dooley had turned down the positions that would have qualified as a reasonable accommodation, there was no expectation for NGM to create additional roles to accommodate Dooley. Request for Additional Leave It is undisputed that NGM provided Dooley with paid disability leave for over a year, including two extensions. Because of the length of the accommodation, Dooley was required to show that additional leave would have allowed him to heal and “plausibly have enabled [him] adequately to perform [his] job. Humphrey, 239 F.3d at 1136. Dooley could not provide such documentation because his doctor indicated that the restrictions were permanent. Dooley does not allege that more leave would have healed him but that it would have provided more time for him to “bid on positions that would come open.” However, Dooley failed to present any evidence that such positions opened within a reasonable time after his termination that he would have been able to perform. Take Aways NGM was able to provide documentation that they fully engaged with Dooley’s requests in good faith and that the process was hindered by Dooley’s lack of engagement and documentation. Awareness of ADA obligations and processes is the best pre-emptive protection against a claim of discrimination. 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 Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

June 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and sex. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant was not subjected to any adverse employment action and thus could not establish a prima facie cause of discrimination. Royal attorneys also argued that Complainant’s allegations of a hostile work environment and harassment fell short. The Complainant was performing her jobs duties in such a way that it was putting the employer at risk. Complainant’s direct supervisor devised a plan to mitigate the risk the employer was facing and help Complainant improve the quality of her work going forward. It was not disciplinary action, and Complainant was considered an employee in good standing at the time she filled her allegations of discrimination. CHRO agreed that there was insufficient proof to sustain a discrimination or hostile work environment claim and that “if anything, it revealed a disagreement in management styles that does not amount to discrimination and/or harassment under Connecticut law,” and dismissed the case against our client.