In a recent decision with key implications for multi-jurisdictional employment litigation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts rejected ezCater’s attempt to sever or transfer a consolidated discrimination lawsuit brought by four former employees. The case, Corker v. ezCater, involves claims of gender, race, and pregnancy discrimination, as well as retaliation for reporting misconduct.
EzCater, a Boston-based company, argued that three of the plaintiffs—who reside outside Massachusetts—should have their claims dismissed or transferred due to lack of personal jurisdiction and potential jury confusion. The court disagreed, finding that all plaintiffs share sufficient factual and legal overlap and that personal jurisdiction was established, in part, because the employees had worked out of ezCater’s Massachusetts headquarters and filed jointly in the state.
The ruling allows the case to proceed as a collective action, with joint discovery, due to overlapping witnesses, departmental context, and shared allegations of discriminatory conduct involving the same management team.
Pregent Law, representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling. “We are pleased with the judge’s decision,” said attorney Travis Pregent. “As stated in the complaint, our clients were subjected to systemic discrimination and retaliation by the defendant, and we are committed to vigorously litigating this matter to achieve justice and accountability.”
This decision reinforces that employers headquartered in Massachusetts may be held accountable in the state, even for claims brought by remote or out-of-state workers when facts and personnel overlap. More information on this ruling can be found on www.law.com.
