Frisch v. Coherus Biosciences, Inc.

Background

Gabrielle Frisch sued her former employer, Coherus Biosciences, Inc., asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that Coherus terminated her employment after she requested an accommodation allowing her to continue working remotely while nursing her newborn child and amid a surge in coronavirus cases.

Frisch worked for Coherus as an Oncology Account Manager. During the first five months of her employment, she spent most of her workweek in New York City. In March 2020, however, she began working remotely from her home in New Jersey. She continued serving the same clients through virtual meetings. Coherus later required employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and Frisch ultimately received the first dose. After she requested a three-month remote-work accommodation, Coherus terminated her employment on September 16, 2021.

Motion and Legal Standard

Coherus moved to dismiss Frisch’s New York City Human Rights Law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It alternatively moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1), so it did not need to decide the alternative Rule 12(b)(6) argument.

For a nonresident plaintiff to bring a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, the alleged discriminatory conduct must have had an impact in New York City. Contacts with New York City that are merely incidental or limited are not enough.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Frisch did not meet that impact requirement. When the alleged discrimination and retaliation occurred, Frisch was working from home in New Jersey. She was supervised by a manager in New England, was terminated through an email sent from California to New Jersey, and had discussed the vaccine with human-resources employees based in California. Coherus was based in California and had no New York City office.

The court rejected Frisch’s argument that her earlier work in New York City brought her claims within the statute. Her regular New York City travel ended after the first five months of her twenty-three-month employment, and she traveled there only once afterward. The court also found that her virtual communications with New York City clients did not establish the required impact. The opinion notes that Frisch did not allege that the people with whom she communicated while working remotely were themselves working in New York City.

The court distinguished cases involving employees who worked for or remained supervised by a New York City office. Frisch never worked for a New York City office because Coherus did not have one, and the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred long after she began working remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disposition

Judge Broderick granted Coherus’s partial motion to dismiss, and Frisch’s New York City Human Rights Law claims were dismissed. The opinion did not rule on the merits of those claims or decide Frisch’s Title VII claims. Coherus was directed to file an answer by April 5, 2024, and the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.