Scott v. Proclaim America, Inc.
2:14-cv-06003
E.D.N.YJun 22, 2015Background
- Michael Scott worked in Melville, NY as a Senior Claim Director for ProClaim/ESIS/Ace and alleges supervisors Ferdenzi, Roy, and Kainer oversaw him.
- Scott suffered head injuries and surgery in Dec 2013, notified supervisors, and requested medical leave; FMLA leave was approved on Dec 30, 2013.
- Between Dec 2013–Jan 2014 Scott exchanged emails with Kainer and Roy (both employed at corporate HQ in Houston, TX) about his condition and paperwork; Kainer sent disability forms.
- On Jan 17, 2014 Roy called and terminated Scott (offering severance and a neutral reference); Roy later sent a letter stating acceptance of Scott’s resignation, which Scott disputes.
- Scott sued for disability discrimination and FMLA retaliation; Roy and Kainer moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- The Court considered only specific jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(1) and, viewing pleadings favorably to Scott, concluded he failed to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction over Roy and Kainer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York has specific personal jurisdiction over Roy and Kainer under CPLR § 302(a)(1) | Roy and Kainer transacted business in NY by emailing/ calling Scott in NY about work, medical leave, and termination | Their contacts (few emails, one termination call/letter, sending forms) were incidental, performed from Texas, and did not purposefully avail themselves of NY | Dismissal: No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff did not make prima facie showing |
| Whether the communications formed the substantive basis of discrimination/retaliation claims | Communications about assignments, paperwork, and termination created a sufficient nexus to NY claims | Communications were not discriminatory acts directed at NY and did not constitute transacting business in NY | Held against plaintiff: communications insufficient to establish nexus |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should be allowed to investigate contacts | Discovery could reveal facts showing purposeful availment or that decision-making occurred in NY | No factual dispute material to jurisdiction; necessary facts not solely within defendants’ control | Denied: jurisdictional discovery not warranted |
| Whether decisions causing termination were made or participated in by Roy/Kainer in NY | Plaintiff suggests corporate integration and remote participation could connect defendants to NY | No allegations that Roy or Kainer made termination decisions in NY or participated in NY-based decision-making | Held: no facts showing decision occurred in NY or that Roy/Kainer participated in such a decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir.) (contacts need not be physical presence; purposeful availment required)
- Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., 148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir.) (court not bound by conclusory jurisdictional allegations)
- Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S., 750 F.3d 221 (2d Cir.) (distinguishes general vs. specific jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S.) (specific jurisdiction requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy)
- Int’l Healthcare Exch., Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exch., LLC, 470 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y.) (communications forming substantive basis of claims can support jurisdiction)