Jennifer Fields v. Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --