Cunningham v. General Motors LLC

Background

Elva Constance Cunningham and Daria Ross sued General Motors LLC and supervisors, alleging discrimination and retaliation between 2015 and 2017 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State and New York City laws. The plaintiffs had worked for General Motors before being terminated in June and December 2017.

Uwe Ellinghaus, identified as General Motors’ Chief Marketing Officer and the overall manager of the department where both plaintiffs worked, moved to dismiss the claims against him under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). He argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, that service of process was insufficient, and that the complaint failed to state legally sufficient claims.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court denied the request to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It applied New York’s long-arm statute, which permits jurisdiction over a person who transacts business in New York when the claim arises from that business. The complaint and Ellinghaus’s declaration stated that he lived in New York during the plaintiffs’ employment, and the claims against him arose from alleged discrimination during his employment with General Motors in New York.

The court also found that exercising jurisdiction was consistent with constitutional due process. Ellinghaus conceded that he had sufficient connections with New York, so the dispute focused on whether exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The court concluded that he had not made the required compelling showing of unfairness. It also noted New York’s interest in addressing alleged discrimination occurring there against New York residents under New York law.

Failure to State a Claim

The court denied the request to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ellinghaus argued that Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act do not impose individual liability. The plaintiffs clarified that they were not asserting individual liability against Ellinghaus under those federal statutes. Because General Motors was already a defendant, the court stated that individual defendants did not need to be named for those federal claims.

The court nevertheless held that individual defendants were proper defendants for the New York State and New York City discrimination claims. Those claims were sufficiently related to the federal claims against General Motors to fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, meaning the court could hear the related state and city claims together with the federal claims.

Service of Process

The court denied the request to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Ellinghaus argued that service by mail or email was improper. The court had previously authorized alternative service and had rejected the same objection, finding that email service in this case complied with international agreement and constitutional due process. The court found no reason to change that earlier ruling.

Disposition

In Cunningham v. General Motors LLC, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Ellinghaus’s motion to dismiss. The court’s conclusion included an exception: the individual defendants were to be dropped from the federal claims for relief in Counts I, III, IV, V, and VII. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion.