Jennifer Fields v. Sickle Cell Disease Assn., No. 18-2291 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2291 JENNIFER FIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SICKLE CELL DISEASE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00482-FL) Submitted: April 30, 2019 Decided: May 3, 2019 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander C. Kelly, THE KIRBY G. SMITH LAW FIRM LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer S. Jackman, Eric C. Rowe, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jennifer Fields appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We review a judgment dismissing an action for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo but review for clear error the court’s underlying factual findings. Consulting Engr’s Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir. 2009). Fields argues that the Defendant, a Maryland nonprofit corporation, established minimum contacts with North Carolina by employing Fields as an independent contractor with the knowledge that she would be teleworking from North Carolina, by providing her with support to perform that work, and conducting business activities with her while she teleworked in North Carolina. Fields contends that the district court further erred in failing to analyze the Defendant’s contact with Fields in North Carolina outside of the scope of the employment contracts. Finally, Fields argues that the court erred because there were sufficient contacts between the Defendant’s interaction in North Carolina and Fields’ employment discrimination claims. We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fields v. Sickle Cell Disease Ass’n of Am., Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00482-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
