Peak v. Tigergraph, Inc.

Background

Brendon Peak alleged that he worked as a Regional Sales Director for TigerGraph and was paid a base salary plus commissions. His written employment agreement and later compensation plans stated that commissions were “earned” when TigerGraph received full payment from the customer. Peak alleged that changes to the 2019 and 2020 compensation plans reduced the commissions he expected to receive. He complained to supervisors that he should have been paid under the earlier compensation plan.

In May 2020, after Peak relayed an executed statement of work from a prospective client, TigerGraph told him he was being laid off because of the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Peak alleged that he was not paid wages or commissions he had earned and was owed. His amended complaint abandoned his earlier contract-based claims and asserted three Massachusetts Wage Act claims: two claims for retaliatory termination and one claim for failure to pay wages.

Documents Considered

The court applied the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, which allows a court deciding a dismissal motion to consider documents that a complaint relies on, when their authenticity is not disputed. The court considered Peak’s employment agreement and the 2017–2018, 2019, and 2020 compensation plans because the amended complaint relied on those documents and the claims concerned the agreements’ compensation terms.

Retaliation Claims

The Massachusetts Wage Act protects an employee from being penalized for seeking rights under the wage-and-hour provisions of the law. A retaliation claim requires protected conduct, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two.

The court concluded that Peak adequately alleged protected conduct because his complaints about the calculation and payment of commissions were specific and based on his reasonable belief that he was being underpaid. The defendants conceded that termination was an adverse employment action. But the court found that Peak did not plausibly allege causation. His complaints and termination were separated by time, and he did not allege intervening conduct that supported an inference that the complaints caused the termination. The court therefore dismissed both retaliation claims without prejudice, allowing amendment.

Unpaid-Wages Claim

The Massachusetts Wage Act requires a commission to have been definitely determined and to have become due and payable. The compensation plans provided that commissions were earned when TigerGraph received full payment from the customer.

The court held that Peak had not plausibly alleged that TigerGraph had been paid for the sales underlying the claimed commissions. His alleged efforts to develop future business did not establish that the commissions were earned or due and payable when he was terminated. The court dismissed the Wage Act claim for failure to pay wages with prejudice because Peak had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not alleged new facts that would cure the problem.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The two retaliation claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and the Wage Act claim for failure to pay wages was dismissed with prejudice. Peak was given 28 days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint. The court stated that no new claims or parties could be added without permission or the agreement of all parties.