Kraiem v. JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC

Background

Nefissa Kraiem, described in the opinion as a French citizen and resident of London, sued JonesTrading International Limited (JTIL), JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (JTIS), and employees Schlomo Cohen, Gary Cunningham, David Mazzullo, Alan Hill, and Steven Chmielewski. She alleged gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The alleged events occurred in London, Dallas, Greenwich, and New York City. Kraiem was hired by JTIL in London in 2016, and she alleged that her employment was constructively terminated in London in January 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They also relied on the employment contract’s forum-selection clause, which stated that English law governed the contract and that the parties submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

Rulings on the geographic and timing limits

The court held that Title VII claims based on discrete events in Dallas and Greenwich were time-barred because Kraiem filed her administrative charge more than 300 days after those events. The court allowed those events to remain part of a hostile-work-environment claim connected to the timely New York City allegations because, at the pleading stage, it could not conclusively determine that the events were unrelated.

The court dismissed Title VII claims based on events in London. It reasoned that Kraiem was hired and normally worked in London, and that the allegations did not show that she was employed in the United States under either the “center of gravity” or “primary workstation” approach discussed in the opinion. The court stated that Title VII does not protect non-U.S. citizens employed outside the United States.

The court also dismissed the New York State and New York City human-rights claims based on conduct outside New York. Because Kraiem was a nonresident, those laws required the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory conduct to have an impact on her within New York State or New York City. The court held that alleged interactions with New York-based employees while Kraiem was elsewhere, and alleged effects on future career prospects in New York, did not satisfy that requirement. Allegations arising during Kraiem’s July 2017 business trip to New York City could proceed because she was in New York when the alleged conduct occurred.

JTIS’s alleged employer status

The court held that Kraiem adequately pleaded, at this stage, that JTIS and JTIL were a single employer. The opinion relied on allegations that the companies’ employees worked closely together, served the same clients and accounts, reported to the same supervisors, used the same human-resources consultant, and were both owned by Jones & Associates, Inc. The court rejected the separate theory that JTIS was Kraiem’s employer based only on the contract’s provision allowing a possible transfer, because Kraiem did not allege that such a transfer occurred.

Retaliation claims against individual defendants

The court held that Kraiem had not adequately alleged that Cohen or Cunningham personally engaged in retaliation during the New York City trip. Although the complaint described conduct by coworkers that could support retaliation claims against JTIS and JTIL, the allegations concerning Cohen and Cunningham were treated as additional discriminatory conduct rather than conduct causally connected to Kraiem’s complaints. The court therefore dismissed the retaliation claims against Cohen and Cunningham.

Forum-selection clause

The court applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court to dismiss a case when a different forum is contractually selected and is the appropriate place to litigate. Applying the law selected in the contract, the court concluded that the clause covered Kraiem’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims because it broadly covered disputes arising from the employment relationship.

The court held that JTIL and JTIL’s employees, including Cunningham, could invoke the clause. JTIS could not invoke it, and the court did not extend the clause to Cohen. The court also found no strong public-policy reason under United States law to refuse enforcement. It therefore dismissed the remaining claims against JTIL and Cunningham on forum non conveniens grounds.

Disposition

In Kraiem v. JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The motion was denied as to Kraiem’s claims against JTIS for discrimination and retaliation based on the 2017 New York City trip, and as to Dallas and Greenwich allegations insofar as they were part of a hostile-work-environment claim related to that trip. The motion was also denied as to Kraiem’s New York State and New York City human-rights claims against Cohen for events during the New York trip, except that Cohen’s retaliation claim was dismissed.

The rest of Kraiem’s claims were dismissed. The clerk was directed to terminate all defendants other than JTIS and Cohen from the case. The court granted Kraiem leave to replead to correct the deficiencies identified in the opinion, and directed the parties to file a joint status report within 25 days.