Rosenberg v. RTC Indus.

• Docket Number: C.A. No. 19-00414-MSM
• Decision Date: 22 January 2020
• Parties: GANESH MALDONADO ROSENBERG v. RTC INDUSTRIES, INC. and MARK JERRAM
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

GANESH MALDONADO ROSENBERG v. RTC INDUSTRIES, INC. and MARK JERRAM

C.A. No. 19-00414-MSM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

January 22, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge

Pending before me for a report and recommended disposition (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)) is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., or in the alternative, for an order transferring the case to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (ECF No. 8). A hearing was held on January 15, 2020. After reviewing the pleadings and arguments of the parties, I recommend that Defendants' Motion be DENIED in its entirety.

I. Background

The following facts are gleaned from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and taken as true for purposes of this Motion. Plaintiff Ganesh Maldonado Rosenberg is a former employee of RTC who, at all relevant times, worked from an office in Providence, Rhode Island. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Rhode Island and, at all relevant times, met the definition of an "employee" under all relevant statutes throughout her employment with Defendant. Defendant RTC Industries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois. At all times relevant, RTC was Plaintiff's "employer" under all relevant statutes. Defendant Mark Jerram was a Senior Vice President of RTC. Plaintiff asserts twelve state and federal statutory discrimination claims against RTC and one common law battery claim against Mr. Jerram.

Plaintiff was recruited by RTC throughout the second half of 2017. On November 10, 2017, RTC offered Plaintiff a position as a Senior Manager of Client Business Development ("CBD"). Plaintiff was hired into a newly formed CBD group. The CBD group is within the Sales Division. The Sales Division is led by Mr. Jerram, who holds the position of Senior Vice President, Create. Plaintiff reported directly to Bruce Vierck, who, at the time, held the position of Vice President. Mr. Vierck, in turn, reported to Mr. Jerram.

Plaintiff had the second highest sales of any employee in the CBD group (and had the highest sales numbers for new business in the entire Create group), had been given a rating of "strong performer" in her January 2019 performance review and was the only member of CBD who signed on an account that grossed over $1,000,000 for RTC in the first six months of the relationship.

Plaintiff contends that throughout her employment she was regularly sexually harassed by Mr. Jerram. She asserts that during a lunch with Mr. Vierck and Mr. Jerram, Mr. Jerram told Plaintiff "I've given up trying for a boy because if I have one more girl I'm going to commit suicide." He then stated, "shouldn't a guy like me, with a big cock, get a son." Over the following two months, Plaintiff spent three days per week onboarding and training in RTC's offices in Illinois. During these visits, Plaintiff had many meetings with Mr. Jerram during which he allegedly subjected her to sexual harassment. For instance, prior to the startof one meeting, Mr. Jerram walked over from behind his desk to Plaintiff. He came uncomfortably close, leered at Plaintiff, eyeing her up and down multiple times, and said "you must be working out, you look really hot." When Plaintiff did not immediately respond, Mr. Jerram said: "What are your dinner plans for the rest of the nights that you are in town? You need to grab drinks with me, so we can have some fun." In late-June 2018, Plaintiff alleges she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Jerram. While Plaintiff was at the printer in front of Mr. Jerram's office, Mr. Jerram approached from behind and thrust his pubic area into Plaintiff's behind and, while breathing down her neck, reached around Plaintiff's body with his arms and cupped her breast with his hands. While doing this, Mr. Jerram whispered into Plaintiff's ear, "I didn't know you were in town this week, are you already all booked up for dinner? I have to see you." Plaintiff responded, "don't ever touch me," and fled from Mr. Jerram.

In or around the end of May 2018, Plaintiff informed Mr. Jerram that she was pregnant with her second child. Not long thereafter, Mr. Jerram told Plaintiff "don't get me wrong, kids are great, but you just started here and should know that taking your full maternity leave will slow your sales numbers and that's not good for you. You and I need to get a lot closer to make this job work for you." Plaintiff worked up until she went into labor on October 19, 2018. Plaintiff took maternity leave from October 19, 2018 to January 21, 2019. Shortly after returning from maternity leave, Plaintiff learned that her father's cancer (which had been in remission) had tragically come back in a very aggressive form. As a result, she took a leave from February 26, 2019 to April 29, 2019 in order to help take care of her father. On April 30, 2019, the day she returned from leave, Plaintiff was fired by Mr. Jerram. According toPlaintiff, the only explanation, purported cost-cutting, is completely undermined by the fact that RTC posted an advertisement for a sales role in the days following her termination.

II. Standard of Review

It is well established that the burden rests with the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing to withstand a challenge to personal jurisdiction. Barrett v. Lombardi, 239 F.3d 23, 26 (1^st Cir. 2001) (citing Rodriguez v. Fullerton Tires Corp., 115 F.3d 81, 83-84 (1^st Cir. 1997)). See also, Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1^st Cir. 2002). In assessing the plaintiff's prima facie case, the Court must accept as true the "plaintiff's (properly documented) evidentiary proffers" and construe them "in the light most congenial to the plaintiff's jurisdictional claim." See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26, 34, 51 (1^st Cir. 1998). See also Trio Realty, Inc. v. Eldorado Homes, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 322, 325 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 203 (1^st Cir. 1994)) (the court "draw[s] the facts from the pleadings and the parties' supplementary filings, including affidavits, taking facts affirmatively alleged by plaintiff as true and construing disputed facts in the light most hospitable to plaintiff."). In setting forth the prima facie case, the plaintiff is required to bring to light credible evidence and "cannot rest upon mere averments, but must adduce competent evidence of specific facts." Barrett, 239 F.3d at 26 (citing Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1^st Cir. 1995)).

III. Personal Jurisdiction

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that an out-of-state defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of thesuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The District Court may exercise two types of personal jurisdiction over defendants: general and specific jurisdiction. Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 9 (1^st Cir. 2009). General jurisdiction broadly subjects the defendant to suit in the forum on all matters, including those unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum. BlueTarp Fin., Inc. v. Matrix Constr. Co., 709 F.3d 72, 79 (1^st Cir. 2013); Cossaboon v. Me. Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 31 (1^st Cir. 2010). Specific jurisdiction, by contrast, depends on "an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011). For a federal court sitting in diversity to exercise specific jurisdiction, Rhode Island's long-arm statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-33(a), must authorize it. BlueTarp Fin., Inc., 709 F.3d at 79; Astro-Med, Inc., 591 F.3d at 8. The Rhode Island long-arm statute is coextensive with the permissible reach of the Due Process Clause. Id.

The initial inquiry is whether the Court has general or specific jurisdiction. Plaintiff contends that there is both specific and general jurisdiction over Defendants. The Court commences with a consideration of the specific jurisdiction arguments. The Supreme Court has held that where plaintiff's claim "arises out of" or is "directly related to" defendant's contacts with the forum state, a court exercises "specific jurisdiction" over the defendant. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, n.8 (1984).

In the analysis of specific jurisdiction, the court applies two general rules. First, the forum in which the Federal District Court sits must have a long-arm statute that grants jurisdiction over the defendant. See Barrett, 239 F.3d at 26. Second, "the plaintiff must...showsufficient minimum contacts such that 'the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to that statute comports with the strictures of the Constitution.'" LaVallee v. Parrot-Ice Drink Prod. of Am., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 2d 296, 302 (D. Mass. 2002) (quoting Pritzker v. Yari, 42 F.3d 53, 60 (1^st Cir. 1994)). Rhode Island's long-arm statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-5-33, authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the United States Constitution. See Donatelli v. Nat'l Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 461 (1^st Cir. 1990); see also Morel ex rel. Moorehead v. Estate of Davidson, 148 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D.R.I. 2001). Accordingly, the Court need only decide whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction over Defendants comports with due process principles.

A. Due Process Considerations

Where specific jurisdiction is asserted, the First Circuit has developed a three-prong test for analyzing the due process considerations for the existence of specific personal jurisdiction: first, the claim underlying the litigation must directly arise out of, or relate to, the...