Birittieri v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08703
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Birittieri v. Whole Foods, Judge Roman granted in part and denied in part Whole Foods’s motion and transferred the case to Connecticut.
Tony Birittieri and Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.; the case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Connecticut, and the court did not resolve the merits of Birittieri’s claims.
What happened
In Birittieri v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Tony Birittieri claimed that Whole Foods violated disability-discrimination laws by denying workplace accommodations and firing him. He worked at a Whole Foods location in Greenwich, Connecticut, while he lived in New York.
Whole Foods asked the Southern District of New York to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked power over the company, that New York was the wrong location for the lawsuit, and that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court found that Birittieri’s employment decisions and alleged injuries originated in Connecticut, not New York.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted in part and denied in part Whole Foods’s motion, found that the court lacked power over Whole Foods, and transferred the case to the District of Connecticut. The court did not decide whether Birittieri’s disability-related claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Birittieri v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-08703
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Tony Birittieri sued Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation.
Birittieri was hired on March 15, 2019, and worked at a Whole Foods location in Greenwich, Connecticut. He alleged that he had chronic knee issues, high blood pressure, and spinal stenosis that made night shifts difficult. He also alleged that he injured his back while cleaning kitchen equipment in September 2020, received medical instructions to take time off and limit physical labor, and told a supervisor about his condition. According to the complaint, he was required to return to work, was given no accommodations, and was terminated on September 28, 2020, without an explanation.
Birittieri lived in New York and alleged that Whole Foods operated stores in New York. Whole Foods moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), which address personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court first considered whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal power to require Whole Foods to defend the case in New York. It concluded that New York did not have general jurisdiction over Whole Foods. The allegations that Whole Foods operated stores and conducted business in New York were not enough to show that the company was essentially based there.
The court also rejected specific jurisdiction under the relevant New York long-arm statute. The disability-related allegations arose from Birittieri’s hiring, employment, accommodation requests, and termination at the Greenwich, Connecticut location, not from Whole Foods’s New York business activities. The court likewise concluded that the alleged tortious conduct occurred outside New York and that the location of the resulting financial and emotional effects was not enough to make New York the location of the injury for jurisdictional purposes.
Venue and Disposition
The court determined that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. Under the federal transfer statute, however, it could transfer the case to a proper district when doing so served the interests of justice. The court found that the District of Connecticut was the proper destination because the alleged conduct occurred there, Whole Foods conducted business there, and the case could have been filed there.
The court therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Whole Foods’s motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to TRANSFER the action without delay to the District of Connecticut. The court expressly declined to rule on the merits of Birittieri’s disability-related claims because it lacked personal jurisdiction over Whole Foods. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.