![]() On appeal, the Rinsky court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion, finding that New York City law was appropriate because courts should look at whether the “impact of an alleged discriminatory decision was felt in NYC.” The court reasoned that the remote employee worked for the New York City office for 27 years, and that the location of the alleged discriminatory decision (New York City) was relevant to the choice-of-law analysis.Īnother example comes out of a 2019 case in New Jersey. After the case was moved to Federal court, the trial court concluded that the employment law of New York City applied to the case, even though the worker lived in and worked remotely from Massachusetts. ![]() Cushman & Wakefield, an individual living and working in Massachusetts for a New York City-based employer filed a workplace discrimination action in Massachusetts, asserting claims under Massachusetts law. There are a number of examples of remote employees suing under the laws of the State in which the employer is based, rather than the laws of the State in which they live and work.įor example, in the 2019 case of Rinsky v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |