Client Advisory

Janelle N. Winters, Taylor N. Perez

In Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc., the District Court of New Jersey granted the employer defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the District of New Jersey to the Eastern District of North Carolina, denying the employee plaintiff’s assertion that the proper venue laid in New Jersey where she remotely performed work for her employment position. Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident and Senior Instructional Designer for IAT Insurance Group, Inc (“defendant”) brought an action against defendant, asserting claims under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Plaintiff alleged discriminatory, retaliatory, and hostile treatment based on her age, disability, requests for use of medical leave and accommodation, use of FMLA benefits, and retaliation based on her complaint of age discrimination. Defendant is a North Carolina corporation with a principal place of business and corporate headquarters located in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Pursuant to U.S.C. § 1404(a) defendant filed a motion to transfer venue, arguing that a substantial part of the events related to plaintiff’s allegations occurred in the Eastern District of North Carolina, thereby making it a more convenient forum. Plaintiff argued she was physically located in New Jersey during many of the crucial events pertaining to her employment, such as when her direct supervisor and the Chief Human Resources Officer (“CHRO”) issued her a coaching conversation and final written warning via Zoom, when she was notified defendant was replacing her position, and when plaintiff reached out to defendant’s human resources office to report age discrimination.

Plaintiff’s role as a Senior Instructional Designer allowed her to work remotely from her home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. She conducted trainings, one-on-one coaching sessions, and individual development plans mainly via Zoom. Plaintiff’s role also required her to frequently conduct in-person training in North Carolina, Florida, Connecticut, Missouri, and Illinois. Plaintiff’s direct supervisor worked from defendant’s Illinois office, and reported to defendant’s CHRO, who worked from defendant’s headquarters in North Carolina. Defendant claimed the major decisions concerning plaintiff’s employment were all made outside of New Jersey and primarily in North Carolina as the CHRO and other human resources personnel were in North Carolina when decisions regarding plaintiff’s cross-training responsibilities, complaints of mistreatment, medical leave and accommodation, issuance of a final written warning, and available alternate positions following plaintiff’s FMLA leave occurred.
Relying on the six public interest and six private interest factors from Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995), the District Court held that both the private and public interest factors weighed in favor of transfer. When weighing the public interest factors the court noted that the Eastern District of North Carolina faces less congestion than the District of New Jersey, that because New Jersey law claims mirror the federal law claims the judges of the Eastern District of North Carolina will be able to properly apply NJLAD, and that North Carolina has an interest in adjudicating claims arising from employment decisions made by corporations within their borders.

As for the private interest factors, the court recognized that the most recent precedent assessing the issue held that the claims arose where the discriminatory decisions were made instead of where the effects of the decisions were felt. The court also considered the fact that plaintiff’s role required travel outside of New Jersey, including regular visits to defendant’s North Carolina headquarters and that plaintiff’s role, was not explicitly tied to developing a New Jersey market, as weighing against New Jersey being the proper venue. Furthermore, when weighing the convenience considerations of the private interest factors, the court held that though defendant may have been in a better position to travel, plaintiff did not provide any reasoning for her inability to travel to North Carolina, other than not having North Carolina counsel, and considered the parties agreement to conduct remote depositions. Additionally, the court determined if trial were to occur, the cost and burden of transporting defense witnesses to New Jersey would outweigh the cost and burden of plaintiff traveling to North Carolina. As such, the court held that the public and private factors weighed in favor of transfer and granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the District of New Jersey to the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Key Takeaways: This case reaffirms previous precedent that determined a plaintiff’s choice of venue is not always a dispositive factor to a defendant’s motion to transfer venue, and even if a company is comprised of remote employees, venue is not always proper in the location where the employee is working. However, employers should consider litigation and venue implications in assessing their remote work policies. There are numerous factors a court will consider in making venue determination. Based on the holding and dicta of this decision factors that may be relied on to support a plaintiff’s opposition to a motion to transfer venue include: (1) whether plaintiff’s position is explicitly tied to developing a new market in the state where they work remotely; (2) if the employer maintains an office located in the state where plaintiff works remotely; (3) whether direct supervisors are located in the remote work state; and (4) if the employer makes employment decisions from an office or within the state where plaintiff works remotely.