A worker of a waste management company sued her supervisor and the parent company of her employer for sexual harassment under the FEHA.
The parent company moved to have the service of summons quashed on grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it.
It claimed that simply being the parent company of the employer, in and of itself, was not a sufficient contact with California - either under an alter-ego or agency theory - to give the court general jurisdiction over it.
The trial court agreed and, in this unpublished decision, the appellate court affirmed.
The Court analyzed each of plaintiff's arguments, including that the parent company's website didn't distinguish between the parent and subsidiary, and ruled that more than simply being a parent company holding stock of a subsidiary was required before a worker could sue the out-of-state parent company directly under FEHA.
The case is Grant v. Waste Management.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
