New Jersey Federal Court: Employee Home State Proper Venue for Discrimination Claim (Remote Worker Case)
On March 3rd, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey determined that an employee’s home state was the proper venue for an age discrimination claim. The case (Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc.) centered around a remote worker. In this article, our New Jersey age discrimination attorney provides a more detailed overview of the case.
Case Review: Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc.
Background and Facts
The plaintiff in this case, an employee named Rosemarie Papa, remotely from Cherry Hill, New Jersey for an employer headquartered outside the state. That company, IAT Insurance Group, was located in North Carolina. Although some training happened in North Carolina, the worker’s job duties, performance reviews, and day-to-day work occurred primarily from her home office. The employer made termination decisions through managers located in another state.
After separation, she filed an age discrimination claim in New Jersey. The employer moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing that New Jersey lacked a sufficient connection to the dispute. The defense position focused on where corporate decisions were made and where key witnesses and records were located. The plaintiff countered that the locus of employment was New Jersey because that is where the work was performed and where the alleged harm was felt.
The Legal Issue
There are a growing number of remote workers who work across state lines. In this case, the age discrimination dispute was largely one of venue. The dispute turned on federal venue rules under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. A civil action may proceed in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. In employment discrimination cases, courts examine where the employee worked, where the alleged discriminatory acts took effect, and where relevant employment records are maintained. Remote work can make things complicated.
Federal Court Decision
The court denied the employer’s motion and held that venue in New Jersey was proper. The judge who wrote the majority opinion was focused largely on the key fact that the employee performed job duties in New Jersey on a continuous basis. That factual nexus satisfied the “substantial part” requirement under federal venue rules. The court rejected the argument that the employer’s headquarters or decision-makers should control the venue in a remote work case.
The Implications
The ruling has practical consequences for employers with distributed workforces. Venue exposure now follows the employee’s work location, not merely the employer’s headquarters. Companies that employ remote workers in New Jersey should be aware that an employee may have a claim under New Jersey law. Along the same lines, New Jersey-based workers should be aware of their rights.
Call Our New Jersey Workplace Discrimination Attorney Today
At Poulos LoPiccolo PC, our New Jersey age discrimination lawyer has the knowledge and experience to help you navigate complex claims. If you have any questions about an age discrimination case, please do not hesitate to contact us today for a fully confidential consultation. We handle age discrimination cases and other discrimination claims statewide in New Jersey.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2025cv04049/568269/38/
