## Facts

- New York resident couriers provided package pickup and delivery services solely within New York for a courier company headquartered in Massachusetts.
- The parties’ written contracts labeled the couriers “independent contractors,” not employees.
- The contracts included (1) a Massachusetts forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Massachusetts and (2) a Massachusetts choice-of-law clause providing that the contract and the parties’ rights and obligations would be governed by Massachusetts law.
- The couriers sued in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging misclassification and seeking relief under Massachusetts wage-related statutes, including the independent contractor statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B), the Wage Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148), and Massachusetts overtime provisions (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151).
- The company moved to dismiss, arguing Massachusetts statutes should not apply to workers who lived and worked entirely in New York and that New York law would bar recovery.
- The Superior Court dismissed, reasoning the Massachusetts independent contractor statute did not apply to nonresidents working outside Massachusetts.

## Issues

1. Whether claims connected to the contracts were properly filed in Massachusetts under the forum-selection clause.
2. Whether the contractual choice of Massachusetts law permitted applying Massachusetts independent contractor and wage statutes to nonresident workers who performed all services outside Massachusetts.
3. Whether conflict-of-laws limits required disregarding the Massachusetts choice-of-law clause because another state had a materially greater interest and a fundamental policy inconsistent with applying Massachusetts law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order dismissing the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the forum-selection clause was enforceable and made Massachusetts a proper forum for the dispute.
- The court held the Superior Court erred by concluding the Massachusetts independent contractor and wage statutes categorically could not apply to nonresidents working outside Massachusetts.
- The court concluded Massachusetts law could apply under the parties’ choice-of-law clause because Massachusetts had a substantial relationship to the transaction (the company was headquartered there), the relevant statutes contained no express territorial limitation, and applying Massachusetts law was not contrary to a fundamental policy of New York.

## Legal Principles

- Massachusetts courts generally enforce forum-selection clauses requiring litigation in Massachusetts absent a showing of unreasonableness or overreaching.
- A contractual choice-of-law clause is generally honored when the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties or transaction and applying the chosen law is not contrary to a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest whose law would otherwise apply.
- Massachusetts wage and misclassification statutes lacking express territorial limits may apply to out-of-state work when a valid choice-of-law clause selects Massachusetts law and conflict-of-laws principles do not require disregarding that selection.
- A difference between states’ employee-classification standards, without more, does not necessarily establish a “fundamental policy” requiring displacement of the parties’ chosen law.

## Conclusion

Nonresident couriers who worked exclusively outside Massachusetts could sue in Massachusetts under an enforceable forum-selection clause and, under an enforceable choice-of-law clause and conflict-of-laws principles, pursue Massachusetts misclassification and wage claims despite the out-of-state location of their work.


Taylor v. E. Connection Operating, Inc., 465 Mass. 191 (2013)