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.


Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. 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 recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!