Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC

Background

Kathryn Shiber sued Centerview Partners LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The opinion addressed only Centerview’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, over Shiber’s New York City and New York State claims.

Centerview offered Shiber a position in its three-year analyst program. Shiber was a New Jersey resident and worked remotely from her home there throughout the approximately two-and-a-half months she worked for Centerview. She never worked inside Centerview’s New York City office. Shiber alleged that she had unspecified anxiety and mood disorders, needed consistent sleep, and requested an accommodation limiting her overnight work. She alleged that Centerview agreed to overnight “guard rails” but later terminated her, telling her that she could not perform the job’s essential functions with the accommodation.

The jurisdictional issue

The court explained that the New York City Human Rights Law generally protects people who live or work in New York City, including nonresidents who work there. A nonresident must allege that the discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York City and that the impact was felt by the plaintiff there. The court said the same impact requirement applies to the New York State Human Rights Law, which protects people who live or work in New York State.

The court focused on where Shiber experienced the alleged employment harm, rather than where Centerview’s decisions or communications originated. Because Shiber worked from New Jersey for her entire employment and was not living or working in New York when she was terminated, the court concluded that she could not show an impact in New York City or New York State.

The court rejected Shiber’s argument that her expectation of eventually working in New York was enough. It distinguished cases involving people who were denied jobs that would have required them to work in New York, explaining that Shiber had been hired and only alleged that she might have worked in New York in the future. The court also distinguished an earlier case involving a worker who had spent most of his employment working in a New York office before working remotely.

The court further concluded that Centerview’s New York location, its alleged plans to reopen its offices, and its withholding of New York State taxes did not satisfy the impact requirement. It also rejected the argument that the Covid-19 pandemic changed the requirement, noting that neither the New York City Council nor the New York State Legislature had created an exception for out-of-state employees working remotely during the pandemic.

Jurisdictional discovery

Shiber requested discovery about whether other analysts returned to Centerview’s offices, Centerview’s internal expectations about her working in New York City, and whether Centerview considered her a New York employee. The court denied that request. It held that the proposed discovery could not overcome the fact that Shiber did not live or work in New York when she was fired and could not identify an impact she felt there.

Disposition

The court granted Centerview’s motion to dismiss Shiber’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court denied Shiber’s request for jurisdictional discovery. The opinion did not state a disposition of Shiber’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.