United States

Littler Mendelson logo

As the largest labor and employment law firm in the United States—with more than 800 attorneys, 51 locations, and a practice that extends into every area and sub-area of workplace law—Littler Mendelson has the ability to provide rapid, integrated solutions for any labor, employment, benefits or global migration issue.

Littler’s international experience is long-standing and diverse, positioning us to effectively assist employers with the significant challenges of managing employees in multiple countries. Our international employment law practice consists of 100+ lawyers who have worked on projects involving the employment laws of nations across the globe. Our attorneys are fluent in 20+ languages and are actively involved in various international associations, such as the U.S. Council on International Business and the International Bar Association.

Supporting Littler's international employment law practice is a well-established network of working relationships with pre-eminent employment lawyers around the world. Littler is the U.S. member of the Ius Laboris global alliance of leading human resources law practitioners, with member firms in 45 countries and coverage in more than 100 countries.

Visit Website

Supreme Court Clarifies Where Multi-State Employers Can Be Sued

Posted on March 2, 2010 by Littler Mendelson

In what could be hailed as a victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it less likely that a company can be sued in state court just because it conducts business in that state.  Under federal statute, a corporation is to be considered a citizen of any state in which it has been incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.  If sued in state court, a corporation can seek to have the case moved to federal court - a move often deemed advantageous for employers - if the parties are from different states.

In Hertz Corporation v. Friend (08-1107) (pdf) the Court unanimously held that a corporation's "principal place of business" (or "nerve center") for the purpose of establishing the business's citizenship is the place where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, which typically will be its corporate headquarters.  The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's test for determining corporate citizenship, which involved first determining the amount of the company's business activity state by state.  If the amount of activity was considered "significantly larger" or "substantially predominant" in one state, then that state was to be the corporation's principal place of business.  The Court explained that the Ninth Circuit and many other courts have focused on where a corporation's actual business activities are located, and thus have adopted "divergent and increasingly complex tests" to determine citizenship.  The Supreme Court reasoned that while imperfect, using the "nerve center" test is the best approach for establishing corporate citizenship.  The practical effect of this decision for employers is that it will be harder to be sued in state courts where the company is neither incorporated nor maintains its corporate headquarters. 

For more information on this case and its implications for employers, continue reading In Hertz v. Friend, the U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Path to Federal Courts by Jim E. Hart.
Tags: Jurisdiction
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.globalemploymentlaw.com/mtc/mt-tb.cgi/758
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end