In Ranza v. Nike (9th Cir. 13-35251), published July 16, 2015, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for sex and age discrimination under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (“inconvenient forum”). The alleged discriminatory conduct occurred in the Netherlands where plaintiff worked for a Nike subsidiary. The Ninth Circuit held that because the claim arose from conduct in the Netherlands, where there was an “adequate and more convenient alternative forum” to litigate plaintiff’s claims, the lower courts were correct in dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The plaintiff, Loredana Ranza, was an American ex-patriot, who was employed in the Netherlands by “NEON,” a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike. The plaintiff claimed she was subjected to sex and age discrimination during her time at NEON and was terminated in October 2008 in retaliation for raising her claims.
The plaintiff filed a discrimination claim before the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (“ETC”), a quasi-judicial organization which makes “recommendations” regarding the merits of claims, but has no power to enforce its judgments or recommendations. After hearing evidence from the plaintiff and NEON, the ETC issued an opinion concluding that the plaintiff’s claims “lacked merit.” While her claim was pending before the ETC, plaintiff filed an employment discrimination claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against NEON and Nike. The EEOC denied the plaintiff’s claim.
After her claim was dismissed by ETC and the EEOC, the plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Oregon. Both NEON and Nike sought to dismiss the claim for lack of personal jurisdiction and other pleading defects. The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over NEON, and that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim against Nike.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against NEON for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Nike, though for different reasons than those advanced by the District Court. The Ninth Circuit relied on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, finding that the courts in Netherlands were a better forum to resolve plaintiff’s claim. The court reasoned that because the alleged discrimination occurred in the Netherlands, and the relevant documents and the majority of witnesses were also located there, it would be a hardship for Nike to defend itself in the District Court of Oregon, despite the fact that Nike is based in Oregon. The Court also gave great deference to the fact that the ETC had already considered (and rejected) plaintiff’s claim, and that it was both “inefficient” and “inadvisable” to relitigate claims that had already been considered.
The holding in Ranza shows that where there is an adequate and more convenient court to litigate a plaintiff’s claims, whether that forum is in a different state, or a different country, the courts are amenable to motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Of course, the case also serves to remind employers that a well drafted employment agreement with a forum clause may avoid the cost and time of bringing a jurisdictional motion in the first place.
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment and labor law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.