Kim v. Harte Hanks, Inc.

Background

Dong Chul Kim alleged that the defendants operated as one integrated company and jointly employed him. He alleged that, after a change in supervision, younger, white, American-born managers and coworkers removed important responsibilities, excluded him from work communications, assigned him more technical and less desirable work, and treated him differently because of his age, race, ancestry, or ethnicity. Kim complained about the treatment and was terminated on April 29, 2016. He asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Kim alleged that he worked almost exclusively from his home office in New Jersey and traveled to the company’s Pennsylvania office fewer than 20 times during roughly three years of employment. The defendants were Harte Hanks, Inc.; Harte-Hanks Direct, Inc.; Harte-Hanks Strategic Marketing, Inc.; and NSO, Inc.

Personal jurisdiction

The court granted the motion to dismiss Harte Hanks, Inc., Harte-Hanks Strategic Marketing, Inc., and NSO, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise its power over a defendant. The court explained that these three companies were not incorporated in New York and did not have their principal places of business there. Kim argued that their relationship with Harte-Hanks Direct, Inc., which was incorporated in New York, and their alleged operation as one integrated enterprise allowed New York to exercise jurisdiction over them.

The court rejected that argument. It held that the allegations did not show that the three out-of-state companies had continuous and systematic contacts with New York sufficient to make them essentially at home there. The court also held that specific personal jurisdiction was unavailable because Kim’s claims arose from his employment in New Jersey, not from the defendants’ contacts with New York. Because the constitutional due-process issue was dispositive, the court did not decide whether New York’s long-arm statute independently authorized jurisdiction.

Timeliness of the New Jersey claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Kim’s New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claims as time-barred. Although Kim filed this federal action more than two years after his termination, he had filed an earlier action in New Jersey within the two-year period. That earlier action was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Kim filed this action 28 days later.

Applying New Jersey equitable-tolling principles, the court held that the limitations period was tolled while the earlier New Jersey case was pending and during the time available to appeal that decision. The court found that Kim pursued his claims diligently and that the defendants had notice of his intent to assert the New Jersey claims within the limitations period.

Whether New Jersey law applied

The court also denied dismissal based on the defendants’ argument that Kim was employed in Pennsylvania. The court held that, as alleged in the complaint, a person employed to work from a home office in New Jersey is employed in New Jersey. The allegations that Kim worked almost exclusively from New Jersey, routinely performed his work there, was told that his remote arrangement was understood when he was hired, and was terminated during a call taken from his New Jersey home were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court did not decide whether Kim could assert New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claims against Harte Hanks, Inc., Harte-Hanks Strategic Marketing, Inc., or NSO, Inc. as joint employers because it dismissed those companies for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It granted the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the action against Harte Hanks, Inc., Harte-Hanks Strategic Marketing, Inc., and NSO, Inc. on personal-jurisdiction grounds. It denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of Kim’s New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claims against Harte-Hanks Direct, Inc. The court directed Harte-Hanks Direct, Inc. to file a responsive pleading by January 6, 2020. The opinion does not separately describe the disposition of Kim’s § 1981 claims against Harte-Hanks Direct, Inc.