503 F.Supp.3d 207
D.N.J.2020Background
- Sean Murphy, engaged as a subcontractor through Aerotek, worked in Hatfield, England for Eisai Limited (Eisai UK) on statistical work for clinical trials; some supervision came from Eisai, Inc. (Eisai US) personnel in New Jersey.
- On hire Murphy requested an electric sit‑stand desk for medical reasons; Eisai UK HR conducted evaluations, denied the electric desk, and later terminated Murphy.
- Murphy emailed Christa Murphy in Eisai US HR complaining; Eisai US responded that it had no employment relationship or control over Eisai UK.
- Murphy sued Eisai UK and Eisai US in the D. N.J. under the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Eisai UK) and for failure to state a claim (Rehabilitation Act does not apply extraterritorially).
- The court held the Rehabilitation Act lacks extraterritorial application and that the operative discriminatory and retaliatory acts occurred in the U.K., dismissed claims against Eisai US for failure to state a claim, found no specific or general personal jurisdiction over Eisai UK, denied jurisdictional discovery, and dismissed Eisai UK for lack of jurisdiction; dismissals without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rehabilitation Act applies extraterritorially | Murphy contends U.S. contacts (supervision from NJ, emails to Eisai US HR) support domestic application | Rehab Act contains no clear extraterritorial reach; key acts occurred abroad | Rehab Act does not apply extraterritorially; dismissal for failure to state a claim as to Eisai US |
| Whether the "focus" of the Rehabilitation Act claims is domestic | Murphy argues some relevant conduct (supervision, communications) occurred in NJ | Defendants argue the focus is employer's refusal to accommodate and termination, which occurred in the U.K. | The statute's focus is the employer's denial/retaliation in the workplace; relevant conduct occurred in the U.K.; domestic application fails |
| Specific personal jurisdiction over Eisai UK in New Jersey | Murphy points to periodic NJ meetings, clinical-trial ties, and supervision from a NJ employee | Eisai UK argues plaintiff's injury, accommodation requests, denials, and termination all occurred in the U.K. | No specific jurisdiction: Eisai UK’s forum contacts were not instrumental to the claimed violations |
| General jurisdiction and jurisdictional discovery over Eisai UK | Murphy asserts ongoing business, federal funding, and clinical-trial activity in NJ | Eisai UK notes it is organized and based in U.K.; contacts lack continuity/systematic presence in NJ | No general jurisdiction (not "at home" in NJ); jurisdictional discovery denied as plaintiff failed to plead contacts with reasonable particularity |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (statutory extraterritoriality framework)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (two-step extraterritoriality/focus analysis)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction; "at home" standard)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful direction/contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Shiring v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827 (elements of Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim)
- O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (specific-jurisdiction analysis tailored to claim nature)