Washington v. NETworks Presentations, LLC

Background

Zuri Washington, a Black woman and classically trained actor, was hired in December 2022 to perform in a touring production of 1776. She alleged that the defendants handled her hair plan differently from the hair plans of white actors, including by delaying information about whether she would receive a wig or a protective hairstyle. She also alleged that a production manager contacted her agent after Washington expressed frustration about the production’s handling of a COVID-19 infection, even though other cast members had also expressed agitation.

Washington later raised concerns about alleged racial discrimination with a human-resources representative while she was on tour in Denver. The representative relayed the discussion to the production team. Washington was terminated about two hours after the meeting, and the termination letter cited aggressive behavior and threatening statements. Washington alleged that the termination was discriminatory and retaliatory. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. They argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over the defendants; that venue, or the federal district where the case could be litigated, was improper; and that Washington failed to state legally sufficient discrimination and retaliation claims. Alternatively, they sought transfer to the District of Maryland. Washington argued that the court had authority over all defendants, that venue was proper, and that her claims were legally sufficient.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that it had general personal jurisdiction over NAMCO, whose principal place of business was in New York. It held that the other corporate defendants and the individual defendants were not subject to general jurisdiction because they were not domiciled in New York, were not served there, and did not have the exceptional level of New York contacts required for general jurisdiction.

The court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over NETworks, 1776 Touring, and Gentry for Washington’s hair-plan-related claims. Washington alleged that her auditions and contract negotiations occurred in New York, that the contract included a New York choice-of-law provision, and that rehearsals and the show’s launch occurred in New York. The court found a sufficient connection between those New York business activities and the alleged delay in communicating her hair plan.

The court held that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants for claims arising from the COVID-19 meeting and related call in Philadelphia. The fact that Washington’s agent was in New York when he received a call was not enough to create the required connection. The court also held that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the termination claims because the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts occurred outside New York and were not substantially related to the formation of Washington’s New York employment contract.

The court further held that the employment contract could not be used to establish jurisdiction over the individual defendants. It therefore granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It denied the motion as to all claims against NAMCO and as to Washington’s hair-plan-related claims against NETworks, 1776 Touring, and Gentry, but otherwise granted the motion.

Venue

The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York under each of the three relevant statutory bases. NAMCO’s New York residence did not establish venue because the other defendants did not all reside in New York. The court also held that a substantial part of the events did not occur in the district: the hair-related events occurred in Utica, the COVID-19 events occurred in Philadelphia, and the human-resources meeting and termination occurred in Denver. The court concluded that the contract’s formation and limited work in New York did not change that result because the contract was largely performed elsewhere.

The court also rejected the fallback basis for venue because the defendants identified the District of Maryland as another district where the case could be brought. The court granted the motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Although the defendants sought transfer to Maryland, the court declined to transfer the case.

Failure to State a Claim

The court declined to consider the defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Because dismissal was warranted for improper venue and the remaining issues went to the merits, the court did not decide whether Washington adequately pleaded discrimination or retaliation. The court denied the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although Washington had not requested permission to amend or identified proposed changes, the court found it plausible that additions to the complaint could establish venue. The court granted Washington 30 days to amend her complaint, with a deadline of April 30, 2025.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, it granted the motion to dismiss for improper venue; denied the personal-jurisdiction motion as to NAMCO and the specified hair-plan claims, but otherwise granted it; and denied the failure-to-state-a-claim motion without prejudice. The court also declined to transfer the action to the District of Maryland.