Quick Hits
- A New Jersey federal court granted a request to transfer venue in an age discrimination lawsuit involving a remote employee, transferring the lawsuit to a federal court in a district where the employer was located.
- The court determined that venue was appropriate where the employer is headquartered and where the alleged discriminatory decisions were made, rather than where the employee resides, and emphasized that litigation convenience weighed in favor of the employer’s home venue.
- This ruling highlights that having remote employees in a state does not automatically open an employer up to litigation in that state.
On March 3, 2026, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, in Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc., granted an employer’s motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina, ruling that the question of proper venue for such claims turns on where the alleged discriminatory decisions were made, not where the employee feels their effects.
Factual Background
The lawsuit involved claims brought by a New Jersey resident, Rosemarie Papa, who was hired for a remote position at IAT Insurance Group in April 2018. According to the ruling, she worked mostly from her home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, conducting training and meetings virtually. Part of her role required her to travel to states outside New Jersey, including North Carolina, Connecticut, Missouri, and Illinois, and she traveled to IAT’s headquarters in North Carolina approximately a dozen times in her last two years of employment.
The remote employee alleged she faced discrimination and retaliation during her employment, including during virtual meetings with a supervisor who worked in Illinois and with human resources officers in North Carolina. In 2023, when she needed to take a medical leave of absence, the employer only allowed her to take unpaid leave and replaced her.
She filed a lawsuit in the District of New Jersey, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The employer then filed a motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer
The District Court of New Jersey ruled that both private- and public-interest factors weighed in favor of a transfer of venue. The court emphasized that in employment discrimination cases involving remote employees, the state where the employee is located is not dispositive. Instead, courts will look to where the discriminatory decisions were made, not where the employee felt their effects. Even though the employee in the case “performed remote work from New Jersey and was present in New Jersey during most of the alleged discriminatory actions,” the “decisions underlying her claims were made by IAT personnel located outside of New Jersey, primarily in North Carolina,” the court stated.
The court explained that, unlike another New Jersey remote employee case denying a request to transfer venue, the employee’s role in this case was not “explicitly tied to developing the New Jersey market.” It did not involve “extensive work in the state.” In her role, the employee traveled outside New Jersey and the work did not pertain directly to the state.
Additionally, the court found that convenience weighed in favor of a transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The court stated that “the cost and burden of transporting multiple defense witnesses to New Jersey would considerably outweigh the cost and burden of Plaintiff and, if needed, Plaintiff’s current counsel traveling to North Carolina.”
Finally, while the court noted that New Jersey has an interest in protecting its citizens, North Carolina has an interest in adjudicating claims arising from employment decisions made by corporations within its borders. The court emphasized that the employee could more easily travel to North Carolina and had not raised any issue with obtaining counsel in North Carolina. Further, the court said, “while this Court may generally have greater familiarity with the NJLAD, there is nothing novel about its provisions; indeed, it essentially mirrors federal law in most respects.”
Key Takeaways
- Location of Discriminatory Decisions—The grant of transfer of venue reinforces that the location where employment decisions are made is a significant factor in determining whether transfer of venue is appropriate in cases involving remote employees. Even though the remote employee in the case lived in New Jersey and performed most of her work from her home in the state, the court focused on the fact that the company headquarters, where the alleged discriminatory decisions were made, is located in North Carolina.
- Location of Remote Employees—The ruling suggests that having remote employees in New Jersey will not automatically subject employers to litigation in the state’s courts. The court found it significant that the remote employee’s work was not specifically tied to the state.
- Nature of the Role—In evaluating proper venue, the nature of the specific role of the remote employee is significant. In this case, the court noted that the employee’s role was not “explicitly tied” to New Jersey or developing the New Jersey market. The court cited precedent that communications from New Jersey were “insufficient to anchor venue when the relevant employment decisions took place” elsewhere.
Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Leaves of Absence, Multistate Compliance, New Jersey, and Return to Work blogs as additional information becomes available.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts
“Ogletree Deakins has experienced professionals in all areas of labour and employment law who provide efficient, client-focused service. We represent employers of all industries and sizes, from small businesses to Fortune 50 companies.”
Please visit the firm link to site
