Yih v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

Background

Jihshyr Yih, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC), TSMC North America (TSMC NA), and TSMC Technology, Inc. (TTI). He alleged that TSMC discriminated against him during interviews for positions that would have been located in Taiwan. The alleged conduct included questions about his family and TSMC’s decision not to hire him. Yih asserted claims involving age, national origin, sex, and marital-status discrimination, as well as retaliation, under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

This was the fourth lawsuit Yih had filed against TSMC in five years involving materially identical claims. Earlier courts had dismissed related actions based on lack of personal jurisdiction or preclusion of the jurisdiction issue. In this action, Yih alleged that TSMC was an alter ego of its California-based subsidiaries and that the subsidiaries were liable for TSMC’s conduct. The court noted that he did not allege that either subsidiary independently participated in the hiring decision.

Motions and Jurisdiction

TSMC moved to dismiss. TSMC NA and TTI moved to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants also moved for sanctions and asked the court to declare Yih a vexatious litigant and impose restrictions on future filings.

The court held that Yih was barred from relitigating TSMC’s contacts with California because he had already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate personal jurisdiction in an earlier California action, the issue had actually been litigated, and the earlier decision was final. The court also independently concluded that it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

For general jurisdiction, the court found that TSMC was not incorporated or headquartered in California, did not maintain an office there, and did not conduct business there. The court rejected Yih’s alter-ego theory because he did not allege sufficient facts showing that TSMC and its subsidiaries failed to maintain separate corporate identities, that TSMC directed their day-to-day operations, or that respecting the corporate form would cause fraud or injustice.

For specific jurisdiction, the court found that Yih’s alleged interviews and communications involved TSMC officials in Taiwan and Yih in New York. He did not allege that TSMC officials took hiring-related actions in California or that TSMC purposefully directed its activities toward California. The positions at issue were located, or would have been located, in Taiwan.

Failure to State a Claim

The court stated that even if it had personal jurisdiction, Yih’s complaint still failed to state a claim for relief. It held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act did not apply because Yih was a non-California resident, the employment would have been outside California, and the alleged conduct did not occur in California.

The court also held that Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not apply to TSMC’s foreign operations because TSMC was a foreign employer not controlled by an American employer. The court additionally noted that the claims would have been untimely under the 90-day period after receipt of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s right-to-sue notice.

Sanctions

The court denied the defendants’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Although the court described Yih’s litigation strategy as unfounded, it found sanctions inappropriate because Yih was proceeding without an attorney.

Vexatious-Litigant Designation and Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to declare Yih a vexatious litigant. It found that Yih had filed four nearly identical lawsuits concerning the same activity, continued to relitigate personal jurisdiction in different courts, and had not been deterred by earlier dismissals. The court concluded that the requirements for a narrowly tailored pre-filing order had been met.

The court barred Yih from filing additional actions against TSMC and its subsidiaries based on the claim that TSMC discriminated against him when refusing to hire him in 2017. It admonished him not to file further complaints about those same facts and stated that any future filing would be subject to initial screening.

The court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied Defendants’ motion for sanctions, and granted Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. It directed the clerk to close the file and stated that a separate judgment would issue.