What Should You Do if Your Remote Employee Sues You in A Distant Court?

With remote work now common, remote employees have been filing employment lawsuits against their long-distance employers. But these lawsuits have a practical problem that typical employment lawsuits do not:  where should the employee sue the employer?

In the usual scenario, the employer and the employee live and work in the same area. The lawsuit would naturally then go to the court in that same location. But where the employee lives in one state or federal judicial district, and the employer does business elsewhere, can the employee sue where he lives? Or should the employee sue where the employer does business? Several United States District Courts on the East Coast have faced this precise question recently and have reached the same result. The employee should sue the employer where the employer does business.

If your company is managing remote employees across multiple states and needs guidance on jurisdiction risks, venue strategy, or defending employment claims filed in improper forums, our attorneys can help. Contact us at contact@consultils.com for clear, strategic, and employer-focused legal support.

Case Background 1

On September 23, 2025, Judge Costello of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a case brought by Angelo Grieco against his employer Alacrity Adjusting Solutions, LLC, because Mr. Grieco (a remote worker based in Pennsylvania) sued his long-distance employer Alacrity (based in Indiana) under Title VII for retaliating against him on the basis of an illness.

Case Origin

Mr. Grieco had an operation, contracted Covid-19, and took a leave of absence. Upon his return, Alacrity did not assign him any work. He wanted to work in Pennsylvania, but did not. Mr. Grieco contended that Pennsylvania was the correct place to sue his employer, because he lived and worked for Alacrity in Pennsylvania. Judge Costello was not convinced.

Key Legal Reasoning

Applying the rule that Title VII cases must be brought where:

• The unlawful employment practice was committed

• Where the employment records are kept and administered

• Or where the person would have worked but for the unlawful employment practice

Judge Costello observed that all that Mr. Grieco alleged was that he wanted to work in Pennsylvania. Judge Costello rejected Mr. Grieco’s contention that merely communicating with his employer from Pennsylvania was enough to maintain a lawsuit there. Judge Costello remarked that Mr. Grieco needed to say more than that. Accordingly, Judge Costello dismissed the case, allowing Mr. Grieco to file it in the proper location.

Case Background 2

On November 10, 2025, Judge Kiel of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey transferred a case brought by a remote hospital worker from the District of New Jersey to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because most of what happened in that case occurred in Pennsylvania, not New Jersey.

Case Origin

The employee there, Ms. Khartchenko (who lived in New Jersey), sued her employer, The American Oncologic Hospital, Inc. (located in Pennslvania), under New Jersey law for discriminating against her on the basis of an illness. She had surgery, and was originally allowed to work from home while she recovered. The hospital brought in a new supervisor who then canceled this work-from-home arrangement and required Ms. Khartchenko to come to the office. When she did not, the hospital fired her.

Key Legal Reasoning

Judge Kiel noted that simply communicating with the employer from New Jersey was not enough (citing the Grieco case). Instead, Judge Kiel noted that any personnel decisions at issue in the case happened in Pennsylvania, the witnesses were located there, and the relevant documents are located there. Accordingly, he transferred the case to the court near the employer, not the employee.

Impact on Employers

The lesson for employers here is that if your remote employee sues you in a distant court where the employee lives, that may not be proper, and the case may have to proceed where the employer is located.

This has a few advantages for the employer:

• It may make it harder for the employee to find competent counsel.

• It makes it more likely that the case will end up in federal, rather than state court. If the lawsuit has to happen where the employer is, and not where the employee lives, the employee may need to find counsel in the distant location. This is not impossible, but it does make the lawsuit more difficult for the employee.

• The plaintiff is less able to put immediate settlement pressure on the employer by subjecting it to the burden of civil discovery. 

In this landscape, employers should closely monitor litigation venues and proactively assert proper jurisdiction to mitigate unnecessary risk.

If your company is managing remote employees across multiple states and needs guidance on jurisdiction risks, venue strategy, or defending employment claims filed in improper forums, our attorneys can help. Contact us at contact@consultils.com for clear, strategic, and employer-focused legal support.

Disclaimer: The materials provided on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice. You should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here. Please consult with your own legal counsel regarding your specific situation and legal questions.

---

As Managing Partner at ILS, Richard Liu ranks among the leading U.S. attorneys in corporate, employment, and regulatory law. He is known for crafting legal strategies aligned with clients’ business objectives and advising Fortune 500 companies, startups, and executives on corporate transactions, financing, privacy, and employment matters across the technology, healthcare, and financial sectors.

Before founding ILS, Richard practiced at top defense firms, where he developed a reputation for anticipating risks and designing strategies that balance protection with growth. He has secured favorable outcomes in contract and intellectual property disputes, represented clients in state and federal courts, and is recognized for combining large-firm expertise with boutique-firm agility. Richard is also a frequent speaker at industry and legal conferences.

Email: contact@consultils.com | Phone: 626-344-8949