Green v. First Tennessee Bank National Association

Background

Lisa Green sued First Tennessee Bank National Association, asserting disability and age discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Green alleged that she worked as a branch manager at the bank’s Kingston Pike West Financial Center in Knoxville, Tennessee; took leave because of physical ailments and work-related stress; was prevented from returning to work; was told to obtain disability benefits; was denied accommodations; and was terminated on December 30, 2018. She later filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a right-to-sue letter on December 22, 2020.

The bank moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3), (4), and (5), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, venue was improper, and the process and service of process were insufficient. Alternatively, the bank asked the court to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court concluded that California lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the bank.

For general jurisdiction, the court explained that a corporation ordinarily is subject to suit where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, or in an exceptional situation where its contacts are so substantial that it is fairly considered at home there. The bank’s headquarters were in Memphis, Tennessee. The bank had no branches or property in California. Its California address was the address of its agent for service of process. The court held that having a California service agent and being qualified to do business there did not, by themselves, establish general jurisdiction.

For specific jurisdiction, the court considered whether the bank purposefully directed conduct toward California and whether Green’s claims arose from the bank’s California-related activities. The court held that Green’s alleged injury while she was in California did not establish the bank’s own substantial connection with California. The alleged discrimination occurred while Green worked for the bank in Tennessee, and Green did not show a direct causal connection between the bank’s limited California contacts and her claims. Because Green failed to satisfy the first two requirements, the court did not consider whether exercising jurisdiction would otherwise be reasonable.

Transfer and Other Matters

The court determined that transfer, rather than dismissal, served the interests of justice. The bank had alternatively sought transfer to the Western District of Tennessee, which supported the court’s conclusion that the receiving court could exercise jurisdiction over the bank. The court also found that transfer could avoid potential statute-of-limitations problems and that there was no indication Green filed in California in bad faith.

The court granted the bank’s request for judicial notice and granted Green’s request for judicial notice. It disregarded the parties’ evidentiary objections because they were not presented in the manner required by the district’s local rules. To the extent Green sought discovery about personal jurisdiction, the court denied that request because her jurisdictional allegations were attenuated and unsupported by more than bare allegations. The court did not reach the bank’s remaining dismissal arguments or the merits of Green’s discrimination claims.

Disposition

The court’s order states that the bank’s motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer was GRANTED in part, and that the action was TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The clerk was instructed to transfer the case and close the file.