The U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared split during oral arguments Nov. 8 in a corporate "personal jurisdiction" case with broad implications for employers because personal jurisdiction relates to where they may be sued.
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, the central question is whether a state can require a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of doing business within the state. The lawsuit challenges a Pennsylvania law that allows any company registered to do business in the state to be sued there, even if the corporation is not headquartered there and the alleged infractions occurred somewhere else. Such consent-by-registration statutes previously were common, but almost all have been revoked or interpreted to clash with Supreme Court decisions.
The court's ruling in this case may impact the locations where employers could face trials, perhaps giving plaintiffs more opportunity to choose a jurisdiction that would likely be most friendly to them. Having a lot of employees working remotely in different locations could open an employer up to a bigger number of jurisdictions where the employer could potentially be sued.
"If that Pennsylvania law is upheld, other states might pass similar laws, expanding the scope of general jurisdiction in those states, as well," said Douglas Brayley, an attorney with Ropes & Gray in Boston.
Background
Virginia resident Robert Mallory sued Virginia-based Norfolk Southern Railway Co. in the Philadelphia...
Nigel Farage has been condemned for falsely suggesting five men arrested on suspicion of terror offences near RAF Fairford were Iranian. The Reform UK leader suggested the incident, which saw five...