Fields v. Sickle Cell Disease Ass'n of Am., Inc.
376 F. Supp. 3d 647
E.D.N.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff (telecommuting Project Director) worked for defendant, a Maryland corporation, under two independent-contractor agreements between defendant and Jennifer Roman Enterprises (plaintiff’s company).
- Agreements required plaintiff to work five business days per month at defendant’s Maryland office; otherwise plaintiff telecommuted from North Carolina to manage her sickle cell disease.
- Plaintiff alleges disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and seeks damages and fees.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, submitting affidavits, the two independent-contractor agreements, corporate formation documents, emails, and the EEOC charge.
- The court evaluated specific personal jurisdiction under due process, focusing on purposeful availment and whether plaintiff’s suit-related conduct created a substantial connection to North Carolina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendant in NC | Hiring and ongoing remote work from NC, and discharge for refusing telecommute accommodation, create substantial contacts with NC | Defendant lacks offices, employees, property, or deliberate contacts in NC; contracts limited and required MD law and monthly Maryland work days | No. Court lacked specific jurisdiction; plaintiff’s contacts were unilateral and contracts did not create substantial NC ties |
| Whether the independent-contractor agreements show purposeful availment | Work performed from NC under the contracts establishes purposeful availment | Contracts were short-term/month-to-month, designated Maryland law, and only required limited presence in MD—no long-term structured relationship targeting NC | No. Contracts did not envision continuing, wide-reaching contacts sufficient for jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiff’s on-going telework in NC transforms defendant’s out-of-state actions into forum contacts | Telework and plaintiff’s choice to live/work in NC made defendant’s conduct reach NC | Plaintiff’s choice to telecommute was unilateral and not an act by defendant to avail itself of NC’s market | No. Plaintiff’s unilateral activity cannot be imputed to defendant to create jurisdiction |
| Whether the locus of alleged wrongful acts supports jurisdiction in NC | Alleged discrimination and retaliatory acts related to plaintiff’s NC work location justify jurisdiction | Most interactions and alleged actionable conduct occurred outside NC (MD conference, Nevada trip); limited Maryland-office requirement shows contacts with MD, not NC | No. Suit-related conduct did not create a substantial connection with NC; dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Leather, LLC v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff’s prima facie burden on jurisdiction at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir.) (court must construe pleading allegations favorably to plaintiff for jurisdictional showing)
- Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56 (4th Cir.) (pleading inferences drawn for plaintiff in jurisdictional analysis)
- Mitrano v. Hawes, 377 F.3d 402 (4th Cir.) (three-factor test for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S.) (long-term, structured contract can establish purposeful availment)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S.) (suit-related conduct must create substantial connection with forum)
- ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consul., Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.) (distinguishes specific vs. general jurisdiction analyses)
- Perdue Foods LLC v. BRF S.A., 814 F.3d 185 (4th Cir.) (single contract may support jurisdiction only if continuing obligations connect defendant to forum)
- Tire Eng'g & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir.) (forum long-arm and due process inquiry)
- Christian Sci. Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (North Carolina’s long-arm construed to full extent of due process)
- Ciena Corp. v. Jarrard, 203 F.3d 312 (4th Cir.) (contacts arising from defendant’s trips can be related enough to create jurisdiction)