We previously blogged on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., Civ. A. No. 3 EAP 2021, Slip. Op. J-49-2021 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2021), which put an end to general jurisdiction based solely on registration to do business in the Commonwealth. Since the issuance of this landscape-shifting decision, courts in the Commonwealth have seen a flurry of ”Mallory motions” coming in all shapes and sizes. So far, plaintiff’s response has been uniform – Mallory’s holding is limited and does not apply to defendants whose dealings are entirely “interstate” and who have no “footprint” in the Commonwealth. This attempt to minimize the impact of Mallory was recently rejected by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in Emery v. U.S. Steel Corp. giving a glimpse of hope to foreign defendants haled to court in Pennsylvania.
Continue Reading Mallory enforced by Philadelphia Court – There Is No General Jurisdiction Based on Registration to Do Business
A Wisconsin employer recently made headlines when it announced that it was offering its employees the option to be outfitted with a microchip to replace the cards or badges they use regularly while at work. The company, called Three Square Market, held a “chip party” on August 1 during which 41 out of its 85 employees opted to have the small chip implanted in their hand. Although the purpose of this RFID chip is limited to office functions such as making purchases in the break room market, logging into computers and printers, and accessing the building, one cannot help but think about the implications this type of technology could have on employee privacy.