Helferich v. Glymed Plus LLC
4:25-cv-10194
E.D. Mich.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Nicole Helferich, a Michigan resident, was employed by GlyMed Plus, L.L.C., a Utah-based LLC, since 2002, serving as a sales representative and later as Director of Sales and Business Development, while primarily working from Michigan.
- Helferich alleges quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, gender discrimination, disparate treatment, and whistleblower retaliation under Michigan law, primarily against GlyMed and its President/CEO Jon McDaniel.
- The alleged misconduct consisted of repeated virtual and in-person harassment by McDaniel, culminating in confrontations and ultimately her constructive discharge, with damaging effects felt in Michigan.
- Defendants removed the suit to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), asserting their contacts with Michigan were insufficient under constitutional due process.
- The court held a hearing and, without holding an evidentiary hearing, resolved the issue on the pleadings and briefing alone.
- Helferich also sought sanctions against Defendants, arguing their motion to dismiss was frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over GlyMed | GlyMed purposefully availed itself of Michigan by employing Helferich to conduct and manage Michigan business, directing work into the state. | Any Michigan contacts are incidental to Helferich's unilateral choice to reside there; no relevant acts occurred in Michigan. | Jurisdiction exists; GlyMed’s contacts with Michigan, including employment relationship, suffice. |
| Personal jurisdiction over McDaniel | McDaniel directed tortious and supervisory conduct knowingly at Helferich in Michigan; purposeful availment and injury occurred in Michigan. | McDaniel’s actions are only in his corporate capacity; contacts do not justify personal jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction exists; McDaniel’s direct and continuous contacts with Helferich in Michigan suffice. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for jurisdiction | Allegations and declarations make a prima facie showing of contact and injury in Michigan. | Defendants’ affidavits and denials should defeat jurisdiction at this stage. | Plaintiff’s burden at this stage is met; affidavits do not rebut prima facie showing. |
| Request for fees/sanctions | Defendants’ motion was frivolous and needlessly obstructive. | Motion was reasonable, raising genuine issues of law. | Fees/sanctions denied; arguments not frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction standard for corporations)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts/due process requirement)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and virtual contacts suffice for jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (personal jurisdiction over individuals for intentional, targeted torts)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 ("arise out of or relate to" standard for specific jurisdiction)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883 (6th Cir. 2002) (purposeful availment in modern, virtual business contexts)
- LAK, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enters., 885 F.2d 1293 (6th Cir. 1989) (mere communications insufficient if not tied to forum-directed activity)