Loredana Ranza v. Nike, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Loredana Ranza, a U.S. citizen who worked in the Netherlands, sued NEON (Nike European Operations Netherlands B.V.) and Nike, Inc. in Oregon for sex- and age-based employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA; the alleged misconduct occurred in the Netherlands.
- NEON is a Dutch, wholly owned Nike subsidiary; Nike is headquartered in Oregon. Ranza trained in the U.S., worked in Hilversum (Netherlands), and was terminated in 2008 after NEON obtained Dutch court approval to terminate her employment; that court declined to decide discrimination claims and pointed her to the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (ETC).
- Ranza pursued and litigated discrimination claims before the ETC; the ETC investigated, held a hearing, and issued an opinion finding no discrimination. The EEOC deferred to the ETC and denied relief.
- Ranza sued in federal court in Oregon. The district court dismissed NEON for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Nike on pleading grounds; the magistrate judge had also recommended dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. Ranza appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether NEON is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Oregon, (2) whether Nike’s contacts could be imputed to NEON (alter ego/agency theories), (3) exhaustion of administrative remedies as to Nike, and (4) whether the Netherlands is a more appropriate forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon has general personal jurisdiction over NEON | NEON’s business contacts with Oregon (employees temporarily in Oregon, frequent trips, contracts with Nike in Oregon, product presence) render it "essentially at home" in Oregon | NEON is Dutch, incorporated and principally operates in the Netherlands; contacts with Oregon are insufficiently continuous/systematic for general jurisdiction | NEON not subject to general jurisdiction in Oregon; contacts are not "so continuous and systematic" to be "essentially at home" (Daimler standard) |
| Whether Nike’s Oregon contacts can be imputed to NEON to establish jurisdiction (agency or alter ego) | Nike’s heavy operational involvement in NEON means Nike’s Oregon contacts should be imputed to NEON (including marketing conduit/agency arguments) | Parent/subsidiary relationship alone is insufficient; agency test rejected by Daimler; alter ego requires pervasive control which plaintiff did not prove | Agency theory unavailable post-Daimler; alter ego may be used bidirectionally but Ranza failed to show the requisite unity of interest and domination; cannot impute Nike’s contacts to NEON |
| Whether Ranza exhausted administrative remedies before suing Nike under Title VII/ADEA | EEOC charge initially named NEON; later added Nike — but Nike was on notice via EEOC communications | Failure to name Nike within 300 days bars claims against Nike | Nike had notice (EEOC sent notice to "Nike, Inc."), so failure to name Nike timely did not deprive court of jurisdiction over Title VII/ADEA claims |
| Whether forum non conveniens requires dismissal of Nike from Oregon suit | Netherlands inadequate because ETC cannot award enforceable damages and Hilversum court limited relief; plaintiff entitled to U.S. forum | Netherlands (ETC) is an adequate and more convenient forum; key evidence and witnesses are in Netherlands; relitigation of matters already decided by ETC is inefficient | Netherlands is an adequate, more convenient forum; dismissal of claims against Nike under forum non conveniens is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general-jurisdiction standard: defendant must be "essentially at home" in forum)
- Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (alter ego test for imputing contacts between parent and subsidiary)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (limits on general jurisdiction; foreign subsidiaries’ contacts insufficient)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and due process framework)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (contacts consisting of travel and purchases insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens principles and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and personal jurisdiction analysis)