Lear v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

KENNETH LEAR, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., d/b/a ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL,GREGORY BROWN, ROBERT KING, and GRISEL GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, Defendants.

1:20-cv-4660-GHW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 7, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Kenneth Lear, applied for a job as a singer on a cruise ship owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("RCCL"). Mr. Lear got the gig, which was to begin months later, starting with rehearsals in Florida, before he shipped off to Alaska. Following a series of telephone calls and emails between Defendants in Florida and Mr. Lear in New York City, RCCL sent Mr. Lear his "Welcome Aboard"—a contract containing the terms of his employment. The contract expressly provided that before he could even begin rehearsals, or receive any pay, Mr. Lear had to pass a medical examination. Mr. Lear failed the medical examination because of a pre-existing medical condition, and RCCL did not let him move forward with the position.

Mr. Lear brought this action as a result. He claims that by not permitting him to work as a singer because of his failure to satisfy the health contingency in his contract, Defendants terminated him. He claims that the termination was the result of discrimination against him because of his disability. Mr. Lear has brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the action against them for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the Southern District of Florida. Because Defendants did not project themselves into New York, and Mr. Lear never worked in New York, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. But the transfer of this case to the Southern District of Florida serves the interests of justice. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and their motion to transfer venue is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Royal Caribbean Cruise Ltd. ("RCCL") operates commercial cruise ships across the world. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13, Dkt. No. 17. The company is incorporated in Liberia, but its principal place of business is in the State of Florida. Id. RCCL does not have any facilities, offices, telephone listings, mailing addresses, or bank accounts in the State of New York. Decl. Yamilet Hurtado, Esq. Supp. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss ("Hurtado Decl.") ¶¶ 2-5, 8, Dkt. No. 20-2. The company does not own or rent any property in New York. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Nor does it design, manufacture, or sell any goods in New York. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. The company had six employees who worked remotely from their homes in New York as of September 15, 2020. Id. ¶ 12.

Plaintiff resides in New York County. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. In response to an online advertisement placed by RCCL, Plaintiff applied for a position as a singer on one of RCCL's cruise ships using the company's website. Decl. Gregory Brown Supp. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss ("Brown Decl.") ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 20-4; Decl. Robert Kling Supp. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss ("Kling Decl.") ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 20-3. In or around March 2018, Gregory Brown, then a casting assistant for RCCL, called Plaintiff to offer him a position as a singer on a cruise ship operated by RCCL, the Radiance of theSeas (the "Ship"). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 21. During that conversation, Plaintiff told Brown that he was HIV positive. Id. ¶ 22. Brown responded, "I don't anticipate this will be an issue." Id.

The terms of Plaintiff's anticipated employment were outlined in an offer letter, Hurtado Decl. Ex. A, and a contract for Plaintiff's employment, Hurtado Decl. Ex. B. See Hurtado Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. The offer letter is dated March 30, 2018. Hurtado Decl. Ex. A, ECF p. 4. The "Employment" section of the offer letter states that Plaintiff "shall be hired to perform aboard [the Ship] beginning on 08/24/2018, ('Commencement Date') and with an expected ending on 05/17/2019 ('End Date')." Id.

The "Welcome Aboard"—RCCL's description of Plaintiff's contract for employment—is dated March 30, 2018, and provides more detail regarding the expected dates and terms of Plaintiff's employment. Hurtado Decl. Ex. B, ECF p. 7. The introductory sentence states "Enclosed please find our contract for your employment with [RCCL] as an Entertainer on board our vessel, the RADIANCE OF THE SEAS beginning 8/24/2018 through 5/17/2019." Hurtado Decl. Ex. A. The contract provided for a rehearsal period prior to Plaintiff's employment on board the vessel. Plaintiff was scheduled to participate in rehearsals from July 7, 2018 through August 23, 2018, which were to be held at the Royal Caribbean Productions Studios, located in North Miami, Florida. Hurtado Decl. Ex. B. Following the rehearsals, Plaintiff was to fly to Alaska to board the Ship, where he was to perform for a nine-month period. Brown Decl. ¶ 9; Kling Decl. ¶ 11.

The contract for Plaintiff's employment provided for no compensation for Plaintiff of any kind prior to the rehearsal period, which was scheduled to begin on July 7. During the rehearsal period, he was to receive a $600 a week "living allowance" "as an expense reimbursement for food during your attendance at rehearsal." Hurtado Decl. Ex. B, ECF p. 7. The company also was to pay him a travel allowance. Payments during the rehearsal period were not described as salary for employment. Under the employment contract, Plaintiff was not entitled to receive his full salaryuntil August 24, 2018. Id., ECF p. 9 ("You will begin on full salary per your contract on 8/24/2018.").

Plaintiff's employment was expressly conditioned, however, upon Plaintiff taking and passing a medical examination before the start of his employment. The "Medical Examination" section of the offer letter reads:

Your employment is expressly conditioned upon your taking and passing a medical examination prior to travelling to rehearsals and/or ship assignment. You will be responsible for payment directly to the medical facility for services rendered as well as necessary subsequent transportation expenses or additional exams required to pass your medical. Please see the "Welcome Aboard" under "Medical" for a more complete explanation of the required the medical examinations.

Hurtado Decl. Ex. A, ECF p. 5. The "Medical" section in the employment contract states, among other things, that employees "are required to possess a valid medical certificate stating that you are fit for duty . . . while under contract with [RCCL]. All employees are responsible for arriving to their rehearsals and/or ship assignment with valid medical certificates." Hurtado Decl. Ex. B, ECF p. 9.

Grisel Garcia Rodriguez, a nurse specialist at RCCL, was responsible for communicating with Plaintiff regarding his pre-employment medical testing. Am Compl. ¶¶ 17, 24-25; Decl. Grisel Garcia Rodriguez Supp. Defs' Mot. to Dismiss ("Rodriguez Decl.") ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 20-5. Around April 25, 2018, Rodriguez told Plaintiff about the minimum medical guidelines for RCCL, about which Plaintiff was allegedly concerned due to his HIV-positive status. Am Compl. ¶ 25. In or around May 2018, Plaintiff had the required blood work performed in New York City at Mount Sinai Medical Center and reported the results to Rodriguez. Id. ¶¶ 26-28. On or about May 31, 2018, Rodriguez informed Plaintiff that his CD4 count and viral load did "not meet the guidelines" to work for RCCL and that, as a result, Plaintiff would "not be able to move forward with the medical clearance process." Id. ¶ 29.

Around June 1, 2018, Plaintiff updated Brown about his failure to meet the medical requirement. Id. ¶ 31. Robert Kling, a casting director for RCCL who oversaw casting assistants,including Brown, was included on all communications between Plaintiff and Brown. Id. ¶ 16; Kling Decl. ¶ 4. Plaintiff was informed that he did not meet the medical requirements for the position more than a month before rehearsals were scheduled to begin in Miami; and nearly three months before August 24, 2018, the date that the Welcome Aboard stated was the date on which Plaintiff's "employment with [RCCL] as an Entertainer on board our vessel, the RADIANCE OF THE SEAS" was to begin. Hurtado Decl. Ex. B, ECF p. 9. Pursuant to the terms of the contract for employment, Plaintiff was not entitled to payment of any amount through the date on which his services were declined.

Brown, Kling, and Rodriguez (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") have been employees of RCCL and Florida residents at all relevant times. Am Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 17; Brown Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Kling Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 1-2. All of them allegedly held supervisory authority over and the power to hire and fire Plaintiff. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 17. Defendants and their agents never traveled to New York to meet with Plaintiff, and all communications between Plaintiff and Defendants were conducted via telephone and email. Brown Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Kling Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Rodriguez Decl. ¶¶ 4-7.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants' decision not to proceed with his employment after he failed the company's medical exam was a termination, that the termination was discriminatory and retaliatory in nature, and that it has resulted in emotional distress, physical ailments, and financial losses. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-38. Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants, as well as RCCL (the "Corporate Defendant"), engaged in unlawful employment practices. Id. ¶¶ 42-86.

Plaintiff received a Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC on March 19, 2020. Id. ¶ 7. He filed the initial complaint on June 17, 2020. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 23, 2020. Dkt. No. 16. That motion was dismissed as moot after Plaintiff amended his complaint on November 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 17.

Defendants then filed their second motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to...