Moore v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Lauren Moore sued Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Vanessa Broadhurst, and Howard Reid. Moore alleged that she was treated unfairly because she is a White woman and that she experienced discrimination, harassment, a hostile work environment, retaliation, loss of responsibilities, negative performance reviews, and termination. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Moore worked for J&J from 2015 until her termination in January 2024. The opinion states that J&J is incorporated and headquartered in New Jersey, that Moore’s official office was at J&J’s New Jersey headquarters, and that she worked there at least two days per week. She also worked remotely from New York City under J&J’s post-pandemic work arrangement. The alleged discriminatory comments, employment decisions, performance reviews, restructuring decisions, and termination were made or carried out in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, although some meetings occurred remotely while Moore was in New York.

Title VII venue

J&J moved to dismiss Moore’s Title VII claim for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Title VII permits an employment-discrimination case to be brought in a district where the unlawful employment practice was committed, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the employee would have worked but for the unlawful practice, or, in certain circumstances, where the employer’s principal office is located.

The court held that the relevant records were not maintained in the Southern District of New York and that J&J’s principal office was not there. It also rejected Moore’s argument that venue was proper because she felt the effects of the alleged discrimination while working remotely in New York. The court interpreted the statutory phrase referring to where discrimination was “committed” to require action by the defendants in New York, not merely effects experienced there. The opinion states that Moore did not claim J&J took action in New York that caused the alleged discrimination, retaliation, or termination.

The court also held that Moore would not have “worked” in New York within the meaning of Title VII’s venue provision if she had not been terminated. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the facts that Moore’s official office, assigned workplace, office, and phone numbers were connected to New Jersey; she worked at the New Jersey headquarters at least two days per week; and J&J did not consider her a remote employee. The court therefore concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue for the Title VII claim.

New York state and city claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moore’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims after determining that the Title VII claim should be transferred. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline that jurisdiction after dismissing or transferring the federal claims.

The court separately held that the state and city claims could not proceed under diversity jurisdiction. It applied the state and city laws’ impact tests, which examine where the alleged discriminatory conduct had its legally significant impact. The court concluded that Moore worked in New Jersey, the defendants were not located in New York, and the relevant decisions and actions occurred in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Any effect Moore experienced in New York was therefore only tangential or incidental. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Disposition

The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York and ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part: Moore’s Title VII claim was transferred, while her NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims were dismissed. The court did not reach the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) arguments concerning personal jurisdiction. It also denied as moot discovery-related motions at ECF Nos. 61 and 66.