Anwar v. Dow Chemical Co., 876 F.3d 841

Background

Rose Anwar, a U.S. citizen, worked for MEG International in Dubai and was promoted to CIO; she alleges sex and marital-status discrimination by supervisor Ramesh Ramachandran and was terminated in 2014 after initiating divorce proceedings.
Anwar sued in Michigan federal court (against MEG International/MEG Americas, Ramachandran, and Dow) asserting Title VII, Michigan ELCRA, and contract/promissory-estoppel claims based on alleged discrimination and joint-employer/alter-ego theories.
MEG International moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (and other defenses); the district court limited discovery to jurisdictional issues and later dismissed MEG International for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Dow argued it was not Anwar’s employer (or joint employer) and moved to dismiss/for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for Dow on Title VII and ELCRA claims and dismissed the remaining contract-based claims.
Anwar sought additional discovery (two former-employee depositions and written discovery) and Rule 56(d) relief; the district court denied those requests and entered the dispositive rulings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over MEG International via alter-ego/doing-business-as MEG Americas	Anwar: MEG International and MEG Americas operate as a single enterprise (shared board members, financing role, common website and business) so Michigan courts can exercise jurisdiction	MEG Int’l: entities are separate; MEG Int’l is a Dubai entity and not the alter ego of Michigan-registered MEG Americas	Held: Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction affirmed; Anwar failed to make a prima facie showing of the required unity of ownership/control under federal and Michigan law
Forum non conveniens (alternative)	Anwar: Michigan is an appropriate forum for her federal/state claims	MEG Int’l: case should be litigated in Dubai; forum non conveniens is appropriate	Held: Court did not reach forum non conveniens because dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was affirmed
Dow’s liability as joint employer under Title VII and ELCRA	Anwar: Dow exercised control over her employment through seconded managers (Ramachandran and Freisler) who were employed by Dow subsidiaries	Dow: Although managers were seconded, Dow did not control the manner and means of Anwar’s work and was not her employer	Held: Summary judgment for Dow affirmed; Anwar failed to show sufficient interrelated operations or control to establish joint-employer/single-employer status under federal and Michigan tests
Denial of additional discovery / protective order	Anwar: additional depositions and written discovery were necessary to oppose dismissal/summary judgment and to support Rule 56(d) request	Defendants: the district court had narrowly limited discovery to jurisdictional questions; sought discovery was irrelevant/unduly burdensome	Held: Protective order and denial of further discovery affirmed as within the district court’s discretion; Anwar did not show the proposed discovery was likely to change the result

Key Cases Cited

MAG IAS Holdings, Inc. v. Schmückle, 854 F.3d 894 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and procedure for personal-jurisdiction dismissal)
Estate of Thomson ex rel. Estate of Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008) (alter-ego theory for personal jurisdiction; factors to assess unity of enterprise)
Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2011) (application of alter-ego theory in the Sixth Circuit)
Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (clarifies federal alter-ego test requiring pervasive control beyond macromanagement)
Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332 (6th Cir. 1983) (factors for parent/subsidiary single-employer analysis under Title VII)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute on summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)