IBM Japan case crib note, via Excel.

I tried to make something that would be self-explanatory, for those who have been following the story.

When the judge decides the IBM parties’ motion to dismiss, these will be the key issues. (Sure, it could be “go back and re-serve”, but I think she would have said this in July.)

Notice: it’s very easy. The Court will decide whether Title VII applies to IBM USA, as a “single employer”, in its Japan operations. If that’s yes, then the next thing is whether IBM Japan is under New York jurisdiction through one of the Civil Law and Practice Rule (NYCPLR) 301 analyses. (This are either “mere department” or “agency”. You only need one.)

For Title VII and NY CPLR:

If it’s YES and YES, then I can ask for summary judgment right away.

If it’s NO and NO, I have some considering to do.

If it’s YES and NO, then I potentially lose the contract / labor law claim as an item that can be adjudicated stateside.

It could also be NO and YES, too, actually. No Title VII because of insufficient facts, but keep the jurisdiction on IBM Japan. That’s a complicated one worth its own blog post.