Roddey v. KPMG L.L.P.

Background

Coretta Roddey sued KPMG L.L.P. and Sabrina Donnelly, Jonathan Edgerton, Julie Molitor, Jonathan Wyatt, Yvonne Garcia, Timothy Phelps, and Allison Sumrow. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Roddey alleged that KPMG hired her on September 16, 2021, for a position based out of its New York office and required her to relocate to the New York City area by March 27, 2022. She lived and worked remotely from Georgia during her employment because of KPMG’s pandemic-related remote-work policy. She alleged that she was denied project and business-development opportunities, that similarly situated managers who were not African American received greater support, and that she was retaliated against after raising discrimination concerns. KPMG terminated her employment on January 28, 2022, while she was still living in Georgia.

Motions and personal jurisdiction

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss all claims against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s legal authority over a defendant. Roddey did not claim that the individual defendants were generally subject to New York jurisdiction; instead, she argued that New York’s long-arm statute provided specific jurisdiction based on their work managing her and their contacts with New York.

The court rejected that argument. None of the individual defendants lived, worked, or owned property in New York, and none was based in KPMG’s New York office during Roddey’s employment. Roddey worked from Georgia except for two visits to the New York office, and she did not allege that the events described in her complaint occurred during those visits or that she interacted with the individual defendants there. The court also found that her New York work telephone number, her email signature listing KPMG’s New York address, and her intention to relocate did not establish that the individual defendants purposefully conducted substantial business in New York.

The court separately considered an email from Jonathan Edgerton about the possible Goldman Sachs Carbon Project and when Roddey would be in New York. It found that this email thread did not establish a sustained and substantial transaction of business in New York because the anticipated project never occurred and no meeting took place there.

The court also held that Roddey had not shown that the individual defendants committed tortious acts causing an injury in New York. Because she performed her employment duties in Georgia, the court concluded that the original event causing the alleged termination and other discrimination occurred in Georgia rather than New York. The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Roddey’s claims against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional discovery and amendment

Roddey asked to conduct discovery about personal jurisdiction and to amend her First Amended Complaint. The court denied jurisdictional discovery because she had not made the required threshold showing of a possible basis for jurisdiction or identified a genuine jurisdictional factual dispute.

The court denied her request to amend without prejudice. Roddey did not explain what allegations she would add and did not provide a proposed amended complaint, leaving the court unable to evaluate whether amendment would be proper. The court’s order used the phrase “DENIED without prejudice” for this request.

New York State and New York City human-rights claims

Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Roddey’s New York State and New York City human-rights claims for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, they moved for partial summary judgment on those claims. Defendants argued that Roddey could not show that the alleged misconduct occurred in New York because she was living and working in Georgia.

The court relied on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Syeed, which held that the New York State and New York City human-rights laws can protect nonresidents who actively sought an actual New York-based job opportunity. The court recognized that Syeed involved a failure to hire or promote, while Roddey alleged discriminatory treatment and termination. It nevertheless found the reasoning applicable because Roddey had been hired for a New York-based position, was expected to relocate there, and alleged that she would have lived and worked in New York but for KPMG’s conduct.

The court agreed with another district court’s reasoning that an employer should not be permitted to discriminate against an employee who was terminated before having the chance to work in New York when the employee would have worked there but for the termination. It held that Roddey adequately alleged an impact in New York sufficient to state claims under both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court therefore denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims and denied the alternative motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the motion to dismiss Roddey’s claims against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. He denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment as to the New York State and New York City human-rights claims. He denied Roddey’s requests for jurisdictional discovery and to amend her First Amended Complaint. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.