Personal jurisdiction and venue are quintessential 1L concepts — bedrock principles of civil procedure grounded in physical geography, territorial sovereignty and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. But how do these long-standing principles apply to more modern concepts like, for example, a remote workforce? An employer with its headquarters in Tennessee may now have employees performing their daily duties from home offices in other states, sometimes with little more than a laptop and Zoom connection tying them to the company. When an employment dispute erupts, the central question becomes: Should the lawsuit be filed in Tennessee, or in the state where the remote employee lives and works? Courts are navigating this tension in several ways, applying longstanding jurisdictional doctrines to the realities of today’s distributed workforce.

A Primer on Personal Jurisdiction and Venue

Personal jurisdiction ensures that a court has constitutional power over the parties. Under the Due Process Clause, a defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that suit there does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”¹ For business entities, jurisdiction splits into general and specific. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in its 2014 Daimler AG v. Bauman decision that general jurisdiction exists where the defendant is “at home” — typically its state of incorporation or principal place of business.² Post-Daimler, this is narrow; sporadic business contacts rarely suffice.

Specific jurisdiction requires that the suit “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum.³ Purposeful availment means the defendant deliberately reached into the forum, not that the plaintiff unilaterally created contacts.⁴ Tennessee’s long-arm statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-2-214, extends to the limits of due process, so federal and state courts apply the same analysis.⁵

Venue, by contrast, concerns the geographic propriety of the forum among those with jurisdiction. In federal court, the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), allows suit where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred or (if neither) where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Employment statutes add specifics. Title VII venue lies where the unlawful practice was committed, where employment records are maintained, or where the defendant resides. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The ADA and ADEA follow the general venue rules. Even if venue and jurisdiction are proper, a defendant may seek transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Alternatively, § 1406(a) permits transfer or dismissal if venue is improper. Courts weigh these flexibly, but the plaintiff’s choice receives deference — though less so when the chosen forum lacks a strong connection to the dispute.

Remote Work and the ‘Center of Gravity’ of Employment Claims

Remote work blurs traditional lines. An employee in California may report daily (albeit remotely) to a Tennessee headquarters via Zoom, with all major decisions made in Nashville. Does that employee’s discrimination claim belong in California or Tennessee? Courts increasingly answer: it depends on where the decisions were made, not merely where the employee “felt” the effects. Courts attempt to discern a dispute’s “center of gravity,” or where “the primary events which gave rise to the alleged wrongs occurred.”⁶

In Concord Music Group Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, the Middle District of Tennessee tackled “the question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident employer of a fully-remote employee.”⁷ There, the court applied a six-factor test, namely whether:

1. the defendant solicited the employment of the plaintiff in the forum state;
2. the plaintiff worked predominantly from within the forum state;
3. the plaintiff was a high-level employee in the defendant’s business;
4. the plaintiff signed the employment contract in the forum state;
5. the defendant had knowledge of, and facilitated, the plaintiff’s remote employment; and
6. the work the plaintiff performed in the forum state advanced the defendant’s business interests in the forum state.

Although the employees at issue worked in Tennessee and the defendant-employer was aware of that, the court determined that the defendant-employer did not “aim its activities at Tennessee.” Indeed, there was no evidence that the defendant-employer affirmatively recruited these allegedly “key” employees to work in Tennessee, requested or required them to work in Tennessee after hiring them, came to Tennessee to meet with them, or expressly tasked them with establishing or extending the business in Tennessee. Rather, the court found that the defendant-employer merely permitted these employees to work from home, and “[a]n agent’s decision to work from home in the forum state generally does not bind an entity to personal jurisdiction in that state where the purpose of the arrangement is merely for the agent’s personal convenience.”

In Ramsey v. Greenbush Logistics Inc., a Tennessee resident sued an Alabama employer for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) violations.⁸ The plaintiff worked at an Alabama facility, but the employer delivered lumber weekly to Tennessee customers. The court found neither general nor specific jurisdiction in Tennessee. General jurisdiction failed because the employer was not “at home” in Tennessee despite those deliveries. Specific jurisdiction failed because the claims — failure to accommodate epilepsy, write-ups and denied raises — arose entirely from events in Alabama. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of Alabama under § 1406(a). Mere business contacts (i.e., deliveries) were insufficient when the employment decisions occurred elsewhere.

How are the concepts of jurisdiction and venue implicated when it’s the employer suing a remote employee? In Environmental 360 Inc. v. Walker, a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee sued a Florida resident for breaching a noncompete after years of remote work for the company.⁹ The court exercised specific personal jurisdiction, finding the employee purposefully availed himself of Tennessee by accepting employment with a Tennessee entity, performing work directed from Tennessee, and maintaining a long-term relationship with the company. The claims arose directly from that relationship. This decision indicates that courts may pull remote employees (as defendants) into Tennessee when they deliberately engage with a Tennessee employer.

The flip side appears in Ncontracts LLC v. Holmberg, a 2022 decision from the Middle District of Tennessee. There, a Tennessee company sued a remote employee (located in California) for breach of contract. The court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Eastern District of California. Two key factors differentiate this case from Environmental 360. First, Holmberg’s employment with the Tennessee-based plaintiff arose entirely by happenstance, as his former employer (which was not based in Tennessee) was absorbed by a Tennessee-based company (Ncontracts). Second, there was no evidence that Holmberg’s position involved duties aimed at the Tennessee market or Tennessee-based team members. Remote work alone did not subject the out-of-state employee to Tennessee jurisdiction when the employee had not otherwise targeted the forum.

Application to Tennessee Employers: Filing in Tennessee or the Employee’s State?

For Tennessee-headquartered employers, the home state is typically the strongest forum in disputes involving remote workers who support core Tennessee operations. General jurisdiction exists because the employer is “at home” in Tennessee. Specific jurisdiction follows readily, as claims arise from the employment relationship formed with a Tennessee entity where key decisions originate. This reflects the “center of gravity” focus on decision-making rather than the employee’s remote location.

Remote employees may file suit in their home state, arguing they performed the work and felt the alleged harm there. Defendants can move to transfer under § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Courts will weigha the locus of employment decisions, the location of key witnesses (typically Tennessee-based supervisors and HR personnel) and record location. Public interest factors, including Tennessee’s stake in regulating its own corporations, often favor the headquarters’ forum.

When a Tennessee employer is the plaintiff suing a remote employee, outcomes depend on purposeful availment. In Environmental 360 Inc. v. Walker, the court exercised specific jurisdiction over a Florida remote worker who accepted employment with the Tennessee company, performed work directed from Tennessee and maintained a long-term relationship. In contrast, the court in Ncontracts LLC v. Holmberg declined jurisdiction over a California remote employee because the relationship arose incidentally through an acquisition and the role lacked duties directed at Tennessee or its market. These decisions show that mere remote work for a Tennessee employer does not automatically confer jurisdiction without additional purposeful ties.

The analysis may shift if the remote worker conducts substantial in-state activities (such as sales calls) in another state. Such activities may support jurisdiction or venue there only if the claims arise out of or relate to those specific activities. For headquarters-centered decisions like discrimination or termination, courts prioritize the center of gravity in Tennessee. Employers can mitigate risk by documenting centralized decision-making processes and including forum-selection clauses designating Tennessee, where enforceable.

Key Takeaways

Remote work does not create an automatic jurisdictional anchor in the employee’s home state when the center of gravity of the employment relationship lies in Tennessee. Current case law favors litigating these disputes in the employer’s home forum. However, proactive drafting of policies, agreements and forum-selection clauses can help minimize transfer disputes and litigation uncertainty. |||

EDWARD G. PHILLIPS is a lawyer with Kramer Rayson LLP in Knoxville, where his primary areas of practice are labor and employment law. He graduated with honors from East Tennessee State University and received his law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1978 with honors, and as a member of The Order of the Coif. He is a former chair of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section.

BRANDON L. MORROW is a lawyer with Kramer Rayson LLP in Knoxville. He represents businesses, educational institutions and religious institutions in employment- and civil rights-related matters. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Tennessee and a law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law.

NOTES
1. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
2. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014).
3. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017).
4. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014).
5. Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 616 (6th Cir. 2005).
6. TVMS Inc. v. Kingsport Book LLC, No. 2:19-CV-59, 2019 WL 13195858, at *8 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 9, 2019).
7. Concord Music Grp. Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, 738 F. Supp. 3d 973, 983 (M.D. Tenn. 2024).
8. 263 F. Supp. 3d 672 (M.D. Tenn. 2017).
9. Env’t 360 Inc. v. Walker, 713 F. Supp. 3d 442 (M.D. Tenn. 2024).