A Massachusetts trial court judge has ruled that an Illinois resident cannot sue his Massachusetts-based employer under the state Wage Act for allegedly failing to pay him commissions on time following his termination.

Plaintiff John Musachia, who briefly worked as an account manager for defendant Abiomed, Inc., argued that a choice-of-law provision in his offer letter that Abiomed sought to enforce was contrary to public policy.

The provision stated that his employment would be governed by the laws of the state where he resided.

But Judge James F. Lang, applying the multi-prong analysis from a 2018 decision from Massachusetts’ highest court, disagreed.

Lang also ruled that the merits of Musachia’s claim — that Abiomed violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him commissions he earned on the date of his termination — failed as a matter of law, since the amount of commissions owed could not be determined at that time.

Alleged late payment

In a letter dated April 7, 2022, Abiomed, a medical device company, offered Musachia a job as a surgical account manager, with Chicago, Milwaukee and the “Quad Cities” of southeastern Iowa and northeastern Illinois as his territory.

The letter offered Musachia a $100,000 salary and an annual target payout of $250,000 should his territory reach 100 percent of his “operating plan.”

Additionally, the letter provided that he would receive a commission payment of $15,000 a month for each of the first three months of his employment, and, if his actual commissions exceeded that base amount, he would receive the actual commission earned.

The letter also stated that his employment would be governed by the laws of the state where he resided.

Musachia began work in early June 2022. After an initial training period in Massachusetts, he worked from his home in Oak Park, Illinois, traveling to a number of other states for work but never back to Massachusetts.

His two direct supervisors lived and worked in Utah and Tennessee, respectively, and Illinois taxes were withheld from his pay.

Musachia was terminated on July 27, 2022, after only 51 days. The next day, he received payment for his regular earnings.

On July 29, Musachia received a $15,000 payment for his June 2022 commission, and, on Aug. 30, 2022, he received a prorated $13,000 payment for his July 2022 commission.

He subsequently sued Abiomed under the Massachusetts Wage Act, asserting that the company failed to timely pay him for accrued commissions.

Abiomed moved for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, contending that the Wage Act was inapplicable to Musachia as an Illinois resident working in Illinois.

Minimal contacts

Lang noted that both parties cited a 2013 Appeals Court case holding that a Florida-based employee could, in fact, bring a Wage Act claim against his Massachusetts employer.

Abiomed argued that there was a “more robust” connection between that plaintiff’s work and Massachusetts than Musachia’s, while the plaintiff contended that the facts were materially identical.

“[T]he court is of the view that the factual differences between the two cases are consequential,” the judge said, noting that in the earlier case the plaintiff had a national territory, no special work connection with his state of domicile, managers in Massachusetts, customers in Massachusetts, and frequent visits to the state throughout the year.

Accordingly, Lang said, if the choice-of-law provision in Musachia’s offer letter was valid, his Wage Act claim would fail, since Illinois “unquestionably” had the more significant relationship to the employment agreement and the parties.

The judge then found that the provision was indeed valid, ruling that it comported with public policy because Illinois had a substantial relationship to the case; because Illinois had at least as great an interest as Massachusetts in the matter; and because Illinois law would apply in the absence of the choice-of-law provision.

Finally, Lang found that the Wage Act claim failed as a matter of law, as Musachia was eligible for commissions beyond his base amount and those could not be determined by the date of his termination, given Abiomed’s three-week process for reviewing and reconciling account managers’ submissions.