Dow v. Casale, 989 N.E.2d 909

Plaintiff Russell Dow (Florida resident) was Starbak’s sole salesperson from 2006–2010 under a written employment agreement governed by Massachusetts law; Starbak was headquartered in Massachusetts and its CEO, Gregory Casale, is a Massachusetts resident.
Dow worked remotely from Florida, served customers in at least 30 states, traveled to ~19 states (including Massachusetts), and visited Massachusetts multiple times per year, often using a consistent cubicle at Starbak’s Massachusetts office.
All sales paperwork, purchase orders, invoices, and payroll/commission processing were generated or transmitted through Massachusetts; paychecks and commission calculations were issued from Massachusetts.
From Oct. 31, 2008, onward Starbak failed to pay commissions owed to Dow; the company later entered bankruptcy and ceased operations in early 2010, leaving unpaid commissions, unreimbursed expenses, and accrued vacation pay.
Dow filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General, obtained authorization to sue under G. L. c. 149, § 150, and obtained summary judgment awarding trebled damages and attorney’s fees; Casale appealed arguing § 150 should not apply to a nonresident who did not primarily work in Massachusetts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a nonresident, mobile employee can invoke § 150’s private remedy when much of his work is performed outside Massachusetts	Dow: Massachusetts has the most significant relationship to his employment; core employment activities (payroll, contracts, employer HQ, regular communications) center in MA, so § 150 applies	Casale: Private § 150 remedy is extraterritorial as to nonresidents who do not primarily work in MA; limited physical presence in MA is insufficient	Court: § 150 may apply where MA has the most significant relationship under choice‑of‑law factors; Dow’s contacts sufficed, so remedy applies

Crocker v. Townsend Oil Co., 464 Mass. 1 (discussing standards of de novo appellate review in employment-law context)
Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., 462 Mass. 164 (stating Wage Act’s purpose to prevent unreasonable detention of wages)
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Assn. v. Boston, 435 Mass. 718 (interpreting Wage Act’s remedial aims)
O’Connell v. Chasdi, 400 Mass. 686 (discussing reach of state statutes and choice‑of‑law considerations)
Taylor v. Eastern Connection Operating, Inc., 465 Mass. 191 (choice‑of‑law analysis in employment statute context)
Cormier v. Pezrow New England, Inc., 437 Mass. 302 (identifying where core of employment relationship lies for venue/connection analysis)
Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9 (procedural direction on appellate attorney’s fees applications)