In Telecommuting Age, Court Weighs Question of Jurisdiction Over Remote Employees
For many workers in the digital age, an office is anywhere with a smartphone. But does having staff work remotely in other states mean employers lose personal jurisdiction in their home state? Florida's Fourth DCA rules Fort Lauderdale's Citrix Systems Inc.'s case against seven former employees in North Carolina should return to the lower court for a hearing on jurisdiction.
November 08, 2018 at 01:44 PM
3 minute read
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed an emerging jurisdictional phenomenon on Wednesday. Can a national company bring suit in its home state against telecommuting employees from other jurisdictions?
The question proved pivotal when Fort Lauderdale-based tech company Citrix Systems Inc. sued seven former employees who worked from North Carolina. It is yet to be definitively answered, but the court ruled that a forum-selection clause wasn't enough to establish personal jurisdiction in Florida — an issue the court said is becoming “an increasingly common factual scenario” as local companies grow their digital footprint and increasingly employ out-of-state staff.
The burden of proving personal jurisdiction will fall to the plaintiff, according to the opinion, written by Fourth DCA Judge Robert M. Gross, with Judges Dorian K. Damoorgian and Alan O. Forst concurring.
Citrix sued the seven out-of-state sales representatives in 2017 when they left to work for Egnyte Inc., a tech company based in California.
The complaint accused the group — Matthew Ware, Jessica Bell, Tereza Landrum, Caroline Wells, Calli Pastor, James Jacobs and Jesse Campbell —of misappropriating trade secrets and breaching their contract with Citrix, which included a covenant not to compete.
Citrix argued that by entering into an employment agreement, the defendants had consented to a forum-selection clause. The company does business in Florida, not North Carolina, and claimed the alleged tortious damage was caused in Florida.
But the former employees moved to dismiss, challenging Florida's personal jurisdiction over them. Their arguments failed to convince Broward Chief Judge Jack Tuter, who denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The appellate judges disagreed, and sent the case back to the trial court to decide whether the employees' Florida ties are strong enough to keep the case alive.
Read the court order:
The lawsuit's future hinges on two conflicting affidavits.
One affidavit, signed by the ex-employees, played down their Florida connection, claiming in-person meetings in Florida were few and far between and that supervision was minimal. According to the court opinion, the appellants denied having any regular video or teleconferences with Citrix.
But Citrix' affidavit told a different story. It claimed Florida bosses kept direct tabs on their North Carolina employees, scheduling regular training sessions and sales calls.
The defendants also had access to Citrix's servers and other IT resources, which were kept in Florida, according to the opinion.
The employees' lawyers, James A. Gale, Samuel A. Lewis and David M. Stahl of Cozen O'Connor in Miami, declined to comment on the case. And counsel to Citrix, April Boyer and Yamilet Hurtado of K&L Gates in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
The opinion referenced a two-step analysis in its decision, based on a Florida Supreme Court case from 1989, in which an out-of-state employee objected to personal jurisdiction. In Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, it became the plaintiff's responsibility to prove jurisdiction.
The case will return to the Broward Circuit Court for a jurisdictional hearing.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AI Governance In Practice
- 2Section 1782 Practice Pointers From Recent Decisions
- 3Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 4Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
- 5Chiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250