holding that New Jersey substantive law did not govern plaintiff’s employment because she “worked exclusively” in Pennsylvania and “the conduct which she alleges was unlawful occurred there”
How later courts described this case
- holding that New Jersey substantive law did not govern plaintiff’s employment because she “worked exclusively” in Pennsylvania and “the conduct which she alleges was unlawful occurred there”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
MARY COLEEN CASSIDY,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 18-00874-CV- NKL
MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC
LABORATORIES, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC moves to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted Counts III and IV of plaintiff Mary Coleen Cassidy’s
petition for damages. The motion to dismiss, which is unopposed, is granted for the reasons
discussed below.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Cassidy is a resident of Missouri. Petition (Doc. 1-1), ¶ 1. She alleges that she worked
for Medical Diagnostic as an account manager responsible for accounts in Kansas, Missouri, and,
later, Oklahoma. Id., ¶¶ 22, 24. Medical Diagnostic is headquartered in New Jersey. Doc. 4, p.
4; see also Petition, ¶ 2. However, Cassidy does not allege that she ever worked in New Jersey.
See, generally, Petition. Nonetheless, Cassidy has asserted claims for age discrimination and
retaliation under not only the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, but also under the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“NJLAD”). See Petition, ¶¶ 85,
89. Medical Diagnostic seeks dismissal of the NJLAD claims.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a pleading for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a matter of law, Cassidy has failed to
state a claim under the New Jersey law she invokes.
“New Jersey courts have consistently applied the law of the state of employment to claims
of workplace discrimination, and therefore only apply the NJLAD if the claimant was employed
in New Jersey.” Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C., 576 F. Supp. 2d 654, 657 (D.N.J. 2008)
(quotation marks and citation omitted) (holding that NJLAD did not apply to Pennsylvania resident
employed by a Pennsylvania company with a New Jersey office, despite the fact that she spent
four out of five days each week in New Jersey and her work centered on New Jersey clients and
cases 90% of the time); Satz v. Taipina, No. 01-5921, 2003 WL 22207205, at *1, *18 (D.N.J. Apr.
15, 2003) (concluding that Pennsylvania resident who worked “exclusively” in Pennsylvania and
Delaware “may not assert the NJLAD against defendants,” despite the fact that defendants had
offices in New Jersey, “because plaintiff was not employed in New Jersey as required by New
Jersey law”), aff’d, 122 F. App’x 598 (3d Cir. 2005); Buccilli v. Timby, Brown & Timbly, 660 A.2d
1261, 1263 (N.J. App. Div. 1995) (holding that New Jersey substantive law did not govern
plaintiff’s employment because she “worked exclusively” in Pennsylvania and “the conduct which
she alleges was unlawful occurred there”).
Because Plaintiff has not alleged that she worked in New Jersey, she fails to state a claim
for relief under the NJLAD.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the NJLAD
claims is granted. Claims III and IV are dismissed without prejudice.
/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: November 29, 2018
Jefferson City, Missouri