Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction

July 17, 2023

Out-of-state employers, insurers, employee benefit plan vendors, and other businesses registered to do business in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, or another state that requires that out-of-state businesses consent to jurisdiction as a condition of their registration to do business in the state face a heightened risk of getting hauled into court in the consent to jurisdiction state following last month’s Supreme Court decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 600 U. S. ____ (2023) even if none of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place in that state.

The Mallory ruling arose from a state lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court seeking damages by Robert Mallory (“Mallory”) to recover damages for cancer the argued was caused by the negligence of his former employer, Norfolk Southern Railroad (“Norfolk”) pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act workers’ compensation scheme that permits railroad employees to sue for injuries caused by employer negligence. Mallory filed the suit in Pennsylvania, a jurisdiction with no real connection to the claims but noted for its favorability to plaintiffs even though he never worked for Norfolk in Pennsylvania.  Mallory only worked for Norfolk in Ohio and Virginia, was a Virginia resident at the time of the suit, and only briefly lived in Pennsylvania after leaving Norfolk’s employment before returning to live in Virginia. Given the lack of connection of Pennsylvania to the parties and events giving rise to the claim, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern moved for the dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit for lack of the requisite “substantial minimum contacts” generally required to support personal jurisdiction.

While courts generally recognize and enforce contractual agreements by a party to consent to jurisdiction, mere registration of an out-of-state business to do business in a state historically has not been recognized as creating the necessary “substantial minimum contacts” that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution generally requires exist to provide the general personal jurisdiction that must exist for a state court to possess jurisdiction to decide a lawsuit over the out-of-state business under the Supreme Court precedent first articulated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945)

Because Pennsylvania is one of five states that currently requires all out-of-state businesses registering to do business in the State to consent to be sued in the state as a condition of registration, however, Mallory argued and the Supreme Court agreed in Mallory that Norfolk waived its ability to object to personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business in the Commonwealth. 

In Mallory, the Supreme Court Majority ruled that any corporation registered to do business in a state which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to general personal jurisdiction waives its right to assert a Due Process challenge to jurisdiction in that state. Accordingly, businesses registering to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction registration state should anticipate that their mere registration with the state likely subjects the business to the jurisdiction of courts in that state even if the business has not entered into a contractual agreement to submit to that state’s jurisdiction or otherwise engage in other actions establishing the required substantial minimum contacts to satisfy the International Shoe Due Process standards even if none of the events underlying the lawsuit took place in that state.

Given the Supreme Court’s Mallory decision, businesses should take into account the potential risks of being subjected to out-of-state litigation and regulation anytime the business expands operations into, registers to do business as an out-of-state business or signs an agreement consenting to jurisdiction into a state other than their primary place of business. As evidenced by Mallory, businesses generally should consider and take steps to manage the risks of allowing the creation of jurisdiction against their business in states other than the primary location in which the business operates. Businesses subject to jurisdiction in a state generally become subject to laws, regulations, and lawsuits in that state. Aside from added obligations and costs associated with being subject to the laws of another state and conducting litigation in an unfamiliar state, businesses subject to the jurisdiction of laws in courts in multiple states open the door for opposing parties to strengthen their position by foreign shopping. Like Mallory, disgruntled current or former employees, plan members, or other opposing parties in disputes may choose to file their lawsuit in the state with the laws, rules, or precedent most favorable to their position even where the dispute does not arise out of events occurring in the chosen state.  Along with assessing when their organization may be subject to liability in other states, businesses should review their insurance coverage and applications to ensure that their insurance and other risk management arrangements take into account the added risks and liabilities that could arise from the additional state law jurisdiction. Consequently, businesses choosing to operate, to register to do business in a consent-to-jurisdiction state, or contractually to agree to submit to jurisdiction in any states should be prepared for the possibility that their organization could subject themselves to regulations, lawsuits, investigations and enforcement actions in that state.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.  

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.  

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. As a significant part of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively domestically and internationally with business, government, and community leaders to prepare for and deal with pregnancy, disability, and other discrimination, leave, health and safety, and other workforce, employee benefit, health care and other operations planning, preparedness and response for more than 35 years. As a part of this work, she regularly advises businesses and government leaders on an on-demand and ongoing basis about the preparation of workforce, health care, and other business and government policies and practices to deal with management in a wide range of contexts ranging from day-to-day operations, through times of crisis or change, and in response to complaints, investigations and enforcement.

Author of a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations on MHPAEA and other health and other benefits, workforce, compliance, workers’ compensation and occupational disease, business disaster and distress, and many other topics, Ms. Stamer has worked with health plans, employers, insurers, government leaders and others on these and other health benefit, workforce and performance and other operational and tactical concerns throughout her adult life.

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension privatization project, Ms. Stamer also has worked domestically and internationally as an advisor to business, community, and government leaders on health, severance, disability, pension, and other workforce, health care and other reform, as well as regularly advises and defends organizations about the design, administration, and defense of their organization’s workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, and other management practices and actions.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Committee, Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and Past Group Chair and current Welfare Plan Committee Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here. 

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training, and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls, and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as: 

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Comments Off on Businesses Risk Out-Of-State Lawsuits, Regulation From Registering In Consent To Jurisdiction States and Contractual Consents To Jurisdiction | Age Discrimination, Antitrust, board of directors, Brokers, child labor, Claims, Claims Administration, compensation, compliance, Construction, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Disability Plans, Discrimination, Drug Testing, Emploeyrs, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Termination, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family Leave, FLSA, FMLA, Fringe Benefits, health benefit, health insurance, Health Plans, Human Resources, Identity Theft, insurers, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, LBGT, Leave, Management, noncompete, occupational safety, OSHA, Wage & Hour, Whistleblower | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation

March 2, 2023

A federal court order against a Brewster home care provider shows some key things an employer should not do when facing a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or other Labor Department investigation. With Labor Department wage and hour and other employment and labor law enforcement soaring under the Biden Administration’s pro-employee agenda, all employers should learn from the schooling this and other noncompliant employers are receiving from the Labor Department and courts.

Sunrise Home Health Care, Inc. & Owner Injunction For FLSA Investigation interference & Retaliation

The Labor Department obtained a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 1, 2023 ordering Sunrise Home Care Inc. and owner Elsa Silva to stop retaliating against employees in an effort to obstruct the wage and Hour Division’s FLSA investigation.

According to the Labor Department complaint, when the Wage and Hour Division began an investigation to evaluate the employers’ compliance with the FLSA in January 2023, Silva has harassed and intimidated employees repeatedly by

  • Asking workers about their communications with investigators;
  • instructing workers to provide false information;
  • Telling employees she would have to close the business and they would lose their jobs if the investigation determined she had to pay overtime premiums; and
  • Pressuring employees to agree to return to the employers any monies owed to employees as a result of the investigation.

The court order secured by the Labor Department forbids Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. from doing the following:

  • Violating the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.
  • Threatening employees with termination or other retaliatory actions or taking any other actions to prevent them from participating in the Department’s investigation or in any other FLSA-protected activity.
  • Obstructing and interfering, in any way, with the investigation.
  • Telling workers not to cooperate with investigators or to provide incomplete or false information to them.
  • Questioning employees about their cooperation or communications with investigators.
  • Advising current and former employees that they must “kickback” or return any back wages the department may determine they are owed.
  • Communicating with any employee regarding the investigation without first informing the employee that they may communicate with investigators voluntarily and not be discriminated against for doing so.

The court order secured by the Labor Department also orders Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. to:

  • Permit division representatives to read aloud – in English, Spanish, Portuguese and any other language understood by most employees – a statement describing employees’ FLSA rights during their paid working hours and in the presence of the defendants.
  • Mail a written statement of the same to current and former employees.
  • Provide a written notice to the Wage and Hour Division at least seven days before terminating an employee for any reason.

The injunctive relief issued by the Court seeks to allows the Labor Department investigation to continue without further employer obstruction. Aside from any contempt sanctions Sunrise and Silva could incur for violating the court’s order, the alleged threats and retaliation also could serve as a basis for the assessment of additional liability as a sanction for the employee’s prohibited retaliation beyond any backpay and penalty awards the Labor Department finds the employer owes for failing to pay wages or keep records.

FLSA Liability Risks High; Learn From Other Employer’s Mistakes

Other employees and their management should learn from the schooling the court ordered against Sunrise and Silva and avoid engaging in the actions prohibited by the court order when facing their own FLSA or other Labor Department investigation.

The Labor Department views audit, investigation and enforcement of the FLSA compliance and violations a key priority and employers risk significant liability for violations from Wage and Hour Division or private enforcement.

Enforcement by the Labor Department and private litigants of minimum wage, overtime, child labor, human trafficking and other laws is increasingly common. the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division concludes approximately 21,000 Fair Labor Standards Act cases, impacting over 200,000 workers each year. Over the last five years, Wage and Hour has collected more than $1 billion in back wages for workers in America. But the Department of Labor recognizes that back wages alone provide insufficient compensation to employees for lost wages. Although actual enforcement dipped slightly over the past two years due to the disruption in the Wage and Hour Division’s staffing and operation during the COVID-19 health care emergency, its announcement of a stream of FLSA enforcement actions reflects it is resuming its zealous enforcement. See WHD FLSA and Other Statistics. Therefore, liquidated damages are intended to compensate workers for damages they may have incurred as the result of not having been paid timely for all the wages they legally earned.

Employers found in violation of these rules enforcement actions face actual damages, interest, civil monetary penalties, enforcement costs, and in the case of willful violations, even potential criminal sanctions. While the Labor Department during the Trump Presidency suspended its pursuit of collection of liquidated damages authorized under the FLSA Generous recoveries also make private enforcement very attractive to employees and plaintiffs’ counsel, this leniency ended after President Biden took office. Since April 9, 2021, Labor Department wage and hour law enforcement policy includes pursuing the implementation and collection of liquidated damages in addition to back pay and interest due for unpaid wages from employers found in violation of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws. Private litigants can recover actual damages plus double damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. The availability of these extraordinary damages and recoveries makes these highly popular cases to many plaintiffs’ attorneys.

As demonstrated by the Exxon injunction, employers facing wage and hour investigations, audits or even employee inquiries or underpayment assertions other should keep in mind that actions by the employer that could be viewed as interference with an investigation by the Labor Department as well as improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about potential FLSA and other related requirements can create retaliation or whistleblower risks. Accordingly, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns, addressing workers during the conduct of a Labor Department audit, investigation or enforcement action and in handling subsequent discipline or other employment decisions involving workers raising them.

Along with FLSA claims, these violations also can trigger state wage an hour, payday act and other liabilities.

Many businesses experience difficulties defending wage and hour and other FLSA claims due to lax timekeeping and recordkeeping practices, misclassification of workers as contract labor or exempt, failure to include nondiscretionary bonus or other required compensation or hours of work when calculating overtime liability and other common mistakes.

Businesses also should use care to manage their potential exposure to joint employer or other liability for unpaid wages, overtime or other FLSA violations committed by subcontractors, contract labor companies, staffing or other businesses providing workers. Businesses can face imputed liability for violations committed by these other organizations when the facts and circumstances show the business exercises sufficient control over the details of the details of the worker’s work to qualify as a common law employer, whether the relationship between the business and the provider of worker qualifies as a “joint employment” relationship under the rules applicable to FLSA and National Labor Relations Act determinations for joint employment or certain other situations. he Wage and Hour Division also has propose adoption of a regulation to govern classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA, which if adopted, would heighten the likelihood that many workers considered contractors by businesses could be reclassified by the Labor Department as employees for FLSA and other wage and hour law purposes. The comment period for that regulation closed in December, 2022. Government contractors and subcontractors also may bear responsibility for contracting with subcontractors and taking other steps to ensure that these subcontracting entities comply with government contract wage requirements and the FLSA.

Misunderstandings about when workers are classified as employees versus contractors, exempt versus non-exempt, and regarding the appropriate tracking, counting, and reporting of hours work increasingly play a major role in aiding Labor Department or plaintiff’s successful enforcement and increase employer liability. Many employers failure to appreciate the significance of statutory presumptions of the existence of an employment relationship and of non-exempt status on the burden of proof the employer must meet to defend its treatment of a worker as a nonemployee or exempt employee. Many employers also fail to recognize the significance of special FLSA rules for characterization of workers as employees, the risk of reclassification of workers the employer considers as contractors or through staffing, day labor or other labor subcontractors as their employees or joint employees. Equally common are misconceptions about the narrowness of the rules for treating employees as exempt and eligible for payment on a salary rather than hourly basis. These mistakes also create a heightened risk that the employer will failed to track necessary Information to defend against employee or Labor Department hours of work claims, overtime or minimum wage claim as well as fuel additional liability for failing to comply with FLSA rules for tracking reporting of hours work. These misperceptions also often lead misinformed employers to take actions that provide a basis for retaliation claims. The Labor Department and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries.

Because these audits often uncover violations or lead to sensitive conversations about the classification and payment of workers under the FLSA and other laws, employers and their leaders generally should arrange for this analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege under the direction of a lawyer experienced in FLSA and other employment law compliance.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. 

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.  

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends businesses on FLSA, CAS, SCA, Davis-Bacon, Equal Pay Act and other wage and hour, compensation and benefit and other Human Resources, Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation | Child Labor, child labor, compensation, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Handbook, Employees Under Age 20, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FMLA, Government Contractors, Handicapped Employee, HR, Human Resources, Joint Employer, Retaliation, tipped employee, White Collar Exemption | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer