[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Case number 22-7073.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Sonia Allegre-Mills at balance versus Anadolu Agency, NA Inc.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Mr. Malahi for the at balance, Mr. Claprock for the ampoule.

[00:00:14] Speaker 05:
Good morning.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Morning.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Mr. Malahi?

[00:00:20] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
May I please report, there were two issues

[00:00:28] Speaker 05:
in this case, whether the court had personal jurisdiction over appellee Anadolu and whether or not plaintiffs adequately alleged that Anadolu was her employer.

[00:00:45] Speaker 05:
Trial court got them both wrong.

[00:00:50] Speaker 05:
The trial court conflated those issues, but they are really separate.

[00:00:56] Speaker 05:
And the personal jurisdiction issue, based on facts which were not even tested, there is personal jurisdiction over Anadolu.

[00:01:09] Speaker 05:
Anadolu had a brick and mortar office in the District of Columbia.

[00:01:16] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:01:16] Speaker 05:
Mills worked in that office for about three to four months.

[00:01:24] Speaker 05:
During the time she worked in that office, she earned the wages that are at issue in this case.

[00:01:30] Speaker 05:
For personal jurisdiction, all that is necessary is that the claims bear some relationship to the acts of the forum state.

[00:01:39] Speaker 05:
That standard was clearly satisfied here.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
My understanding is that what the defendant and what the district court is focusing on is not the context.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
But as you point out, the second part, the relationship between the context and the claim.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
And I'm a little bit mystified about the way the claim has been briefed.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
Because my understanding is that this is a claim arising under the DC analog

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the DCWPCL.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
And it's unclear to me why cases about independent contractors or joint employers are being cited because my understanding under the DCWPCL is that employees are anyone, encompass any person who is

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
what's the word that, uh, who has suffered to work, who is, uh, um, suffered or permitted to work, suffered or permitted to work and that under the DC law, separate entities, regardless of their formal legal status as separate are joined separately liable for violations.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
So I don't know why that isn't briefed more in a more straightforward

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
manner because I don't think there's any claim that she's an independent contractor.

[00:03:17] Speaker 05:
I don't think there's any claim she's an independent contractor either.

[00:03:20] Speaker 05:
She does have an independent contractor agreement, but as we briefed, that contract is essentially irrelevant because it runs contrary to the provisions of the D.C.

[00:03:32] Speaker 05:
wage payment.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
It runs contrary to the relevant facts.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
And there's D.C.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
law on that, that regardless of the formal

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
You know statement like that I think the leading case right versus office and wage and hour is someone who had a contract that characterized her this is the woman who was it.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
did social media work and also administrative work characterized her as an independent contractor.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
And the DC Court of Appeals said, well, we're going to look at the actual facts and they held part of her work was as an independent contractor, but where she was supervised, where she was provided equipment, where her work was continuous, where it was integral to the employer's business,

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
That was not independent contractor.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
I'm just not sure why, if there's something that I'm missing, why the claim has not been analyzed more that way and is instead sort of independent contractor joint employer analysis.

[00:04:37] Speaker 05:
We focused on the joint employer analysis because the independent contractor issue was not really raised by the other side.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
And I mean, neither it seems to me that neither independent contractor nor joint employer law is really directly on point where the question is the applicability of the DCW PCL to facts like these.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
But, you know, I mean, maybe there isn't really, I guess,

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
Maybe there isn't law that's very closely analogous.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
But to me, it seems revealing that even a subcontractor or a staffing firm can be held to be the employer for purposes of or joint and severally liable for wages under this law.

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
Because it's not about the contractual relationship.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
It's about getting wages paid.

[00:05:35] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
by people who are having folks work for them in DC, right?

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
I agree, Your Honor.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
Council, the thing I'm perplexed about is I don't understand, maybe I'm not following it through correctly, but you're now pushing joint employer as your principal argument, but I don't know why in the end that doesn't doom you

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
as well because if they are joint employers, then the forum selection clause would presumably bind both pieces of the joint employment relationship.

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
And then you're facing the forum nonconvenience.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
Now, that is a question that needs to be decided.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
by the district court, I think, in the first instance.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
But you certainly will face that as a serious problem because there is a forum selection clause and there is law that suggests you may be bound by it if in fact you're right that these are joint employers.

[00:06:38] Speaker 05:
Well, Your Honor, you're correct that the district court would have to decide that issue.

[00:06:42] Speaker 05:
However, I don't agree

[00:06:45] Speaker 05:
that just because they were joining employers, that the forum selection clause would bind Anadolu here, that Anadolu would be able to take advantage of that clause.

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
Anadolu is located in the District of Columbia.

[00:07:02] Speaker 05:
And it doesn't make any sense to me that Anadolu would then want to go to Turkey or that should go to Turkey to litigate a case where the cause of action arises under DC law.

[00:07:15] Speaker 05:
So there's many, many arguments, including the public interest factors about why that clause should not be enforced in this case.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
It's a little bit unclear to me.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
I don't know how you read it, but what the forum selection clause covers, any matter of controversy or dispute between the parties relates there too.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
And it probably is a question of translation, but I don't read Turkish.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
And that is indecipherable to me.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
Do you have a position on the scope or not of the clause?

[00:07:56] Speaker 05:
The key, as you pointed out, is the word there too.

[00:08:02] Speaker 05:
Because it's focusing on disputes arising from the contract.

[00:08:11] Speaker 05:
And so the leave issue is not expressly talked about in the contract, but it's based on course of dealing or a modification.

[00:08:22] Speaker 05:
She was getting leave.

[00:08:25] Speaker 05:
She was entitled to take advantage of that leave.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
That was part of the employment relationship.

[00:08:29] Speaker 05:
That's part of wages owed under the DC wage payment collection law.

[00:08:35] Speaker 05:
But it's not within the scope of that very short contract.

[00:08:41] Speaker 05:
So it's outside the scope of the contract.

[00:08:44] Speaker 05:
The other thing is, the contract does not address when payment needs to be issued, payment of wages.

[00:08:52] Speaker 05:
So the timing of that is all governed by DC law, not by the contract.

[00:08:58] Speaker 05:
And that's all the more reason why this case should be litigated in the District of Columbia under District of Columbia law.

[00:09:08] Speaker 05:
Does that answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
But I'm also trying to think about it from the standpoint of we're having this conversation about joint employment, independent contractor status, but the issue is the personal jurisdiction.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
So how far do we go with kind of that dispute to get to personal jurisdiction?

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
And then whether or not if your real claim is that Anadolu through the employment has something somehow to do with what she was owed.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
even though all of her other contractual documents relate to the A.A.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Turk firm.

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
With joint employers, they're both jointly and separately liable, despite the fact that A.A.

[00:09:56] Speaker 05:
Turk was paying her salary.

[00:09:58] Speaker 05:
As far as personal jurisdiction is concerned, we cited a couple of cases in our reply brief, Shoppers Food Warehouse versus Moreno and Cohain versus Arpegia, California.

[00:10:13] Speaker 05:
Personal jurisdiction is not determined the way the trial court determined it.

[00:10:20] Speaker 05:
The trial court read the clause arising out of way too narrowly.

[00:10:28] Speaker 05:
And that's not the way it's decided.

[00:10:30] Speaker 05:
For personal jurisdiction purposes, it has nothing to do with whether she's an employer or not, employee or not, or whether or not Anadolu is an employer.

[00:10:41] Speaker 05:
Those are very separate.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
Well, it has to relate to the claims.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
She has to have pleaded a claim that relates to the contacts with DC, right?

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
So there is at least a sort of look at the nature of the claim.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
You're not saying otherwise.

[00:11:01] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:11:03] Speaker 05:
But the connection is very loose.

[00:11:05] Speaker 05:
And if you look at the Shoppers Food Warehouse case, for instance, Shoppers Food Warehouse did not have a store in DC.

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
Someone slipped and fell at a Maryland store.

[00:11:17] Speaker 05:
She brought soup in the District of Columbia.

[00:11:20] Speaker 05:
And the only contact that Shoppers Food Warehouse had with the District of Columbia was advertising.

[00:11:25] Speaker 05:
So advertising versus negligence in maintaining a store

[00:11:29] Speaker 05:
The arising out of concept does not have to be as direct as the district court found.

[00:11:36] Speaker 05:
All that has to happen is that

[00:11:39] Speaker 05:
The claims need to bear some relationship to the acts in the forum state.

[00:11:45] Speaker 05:
So Anadolu had a brick and mortar building in the forum state and the plaintiff worked in that building.

[00:11:52] Speaker 05:
She worked under their supervisors.

[00:11:54] Speaker 05:
She earned the wages at issue while she was there.

[00:11:58] Speaker 05:
That's enough.

[00:11:59] Speaker 05:
That's more than necessary to establish personal jurisdiction under District of Columbia law.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
I'm willing to look at DC Court of Appeals cases with some deference on their construing their law, but I'm not sure about due process and personal jurisdiction as a constitutional matter.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
I mean, Sharper's Food Warehouse facts are pretty different from what we have here.

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
So we do need to look at her claim, and we do need to see that the claim relates to the contacts in DC.

[00:12:35] Speaker 05:
Yes, your honor, and I believe it does for the reasons that I indicated.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
But you know something just kind of granular if Miss Mills is working in DC and then she wants to take a vacation day, who approves that time off?

[00:12:56] Speaker 05:
I believe that that's something that Anadolu approves because she's being supervised by Anadolu.

[00:13:05] Speaker 05:
And Anadolu is the one coordinating her schedule.

[00:13:09] Speaker 05:
So that would be approved by Anadolu.

[00:13:19] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
We have nothing more, and you're out of time.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
We will give you a... Did you reserve time for rebuttal?

[00:13:27] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
How much?

[00:13:28] Speaker 05:
Three minutes.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
Because we've used more, we'll give you a couple minutes.

[00:13:33] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:13:34] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
Morning, Mr. Klapproth.

[00:13:42] Speaker 04:
Morning, Your Honor.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
My name is Brendan Klapproth, and I represent the Appellee Anadolu Agency, NA Inc.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
The district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's one-count lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction as well as failing to state a claim.

[00:13:58] Speaker 04:
So just to address the personal jurisdiction issue first.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
That is the only issue before us.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
I think the 12b6 issue is as well, but I think the threshold issue is- That opinion was vacated and the case was remanded for the district judge to decide personal jurisdiction.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
He rejected the case on lack of personal jurisdiction and that's on appeal to us.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
Understood, my reading- I mean, I think as we've been discussing with Mr. Malahi that there is a, we need to know about

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
the merits of the claim because the claim has to relate to the farmstay contact.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
So dealing with the, you know, I think the issue here is does the claim arise out of the conduct?

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
Or relate to?

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
Or relate to?

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
Under the D.C.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
Code, the law arm statute, it says rise out of, but then Moreno tells us it relates to as well.

[00:15:04] Speaker 04:
So what we have here though is, and these are the undisputed facts, we have the plaintiff entered into an independent contractor agreement with AA Turk to perform work in Turkey.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
She was provided with a housing allowance in Turkey, private schooling in Turkey.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
She was paid by a Turk.

[00:15:22] Speaker 04:
The vacation leaves that being sued over was provided for by a Turk.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
And ultimately she was terminated by a tour or her contract was not renewed.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
So her claim here is for the vacation leave that she's seeking.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
reimbursement for under the D.C.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
wage payment collection law.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
That is the claim.

[00:15:42] Speaker 04:
And all of the conduct, none of the conduct here by Anadolu relates to or arises out of her claim.

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
So, for example, even in the Joint Appendix 13 in the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that when she had questions about her vacation, she didn't contact Anadolu, but instead contacted A.A.

[00:16:04] Speaker 04:
Turb to inquire about that vacation.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
But I have the same question for you, and perhaps better directed at you, but the claim is a claim under the DC wage law.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
And for obvious policy reasons, the DC law, like the Fair Labor Standards Act, isn't geared to the formal contract relationship between the working person and the person that she's working for.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
or the entity that she's working for, it intentionally is broader to provide an effective means of ensuring that people don't suffer wage theft or what have you.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
And so even though, of course, DC law honors, for example, independent contractor relationships and other kinds of subsidiary relationships, it holds

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
For example, subcontractors jointly and separately liable for violations along with the prime contractor and even staffing firms who obviously aren't the employer are held jointly and separately liable.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
So why isn't it sufficient for Ms.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
Mills to have alleged in this case, sure, Anadolu was wholly on subsidiary.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
I was working there.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
The leave that I want, I earned while I was there.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
A Turk doesn't deny that I'm entitled to leave.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
They're just saying that we've sued the wrong defendant and they want me to come and sue them in Turkey, but I'm suing under a DC law.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
So I agree with Your Honor's assessment of DC law.

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
The independent contractor agreement is not going to be the dispositive determination as to whether she's in fact employed by the statute.

[00:18:02] Speaker 04:
So I do agree with that.

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
And I think though there's a recent Court of Appeals case, I think it's called Steinke, when to determine whether a person is an employee is defined by the statute,

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
we look to Morrison, this circuit's decision.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
And then you apply the factor set forth in Morrison.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
Did the employer or the company have the ability to hire and fire, set the schedule?

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
And the court here went through those factors.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
So that is the correct test.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
Is the control a big element as well there?

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
I think the control is usually a big distinguishing factor in many of the employment cases.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
And I think the control factors apply more so in the independent contractor analysis rather than the joint employer analysis because in that situation, you're trying to decide whether this person is a free agent in the marketplace and has opportunities to work in other places or if they're under the complete control of this one company.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
So yes, we also have as a request is jurisdictional discovery.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
If this were limited,

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
you know, potentially on the remand to just decide these issues so that there can be a distinction between, you know, what was Anadolu's role vis-a-vis why Ms.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
Neal was actually in that facility and performing duties under, at least in that building, and at least alleging that someone from Anadolu was actually managing her or somehow supervising her.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
You know, what's the harm in finding out what is here?

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
Because both have just given different answers about who would approve the leave, for example.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
So with respect to jurisdictional discovery, first off, that was not requested before the trial court.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
So it's our position that it's been waived.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
The second point is that the record before the court shows, for example, Joint Appendix 13, the immediate complaint.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
The complaint alleges that the individual there some.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
First, they say the individual who conveyed the message to terminate is an Andola employee.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
That was later withdrawn through briefing.

[00:20:37] Speaker 04:
But nonetheless, the point that is alleged in the complaint is that this- Another way to read that is that Ms.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
Mills is under a Rule 11 obligation to allege only facts that she can allege are supported.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
that she can ledge with confidence, she may not know anything about the formal employment arrangements of the person who fired her.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
So all she did was change the allegation to say, well, he worked in the office where I worked.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
I don't take that to be retraction of any assertion that he may have been an Anadolu employee.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure that it's relevant.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
under the wage law.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you just to sort of step back and put in perspective implications of your position.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
If I run a French company and I employ a bunch of people in Washington DC, and I have a employment contract with them, and I tell them what their wages are, and they work in a brick and mortar office in DC,

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
binding books and their supervised day-to-day and their book binding activities.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
And then I decide that I'd actually rather not pay them because it's pretty expensive to pay workers.

[00:22:01] Speaker 02:
So I don't pay them.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
And I have a foreign selection clause that if they want to sue me, they have to come to France.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
I don't dispute that I promised them wages.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
but it's really not convenient for me to pay.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
Is it your position that those people are not able to bring a DCWPCL claim in the District of Columbia?

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
So that would hit the element in the form of nonconvenience analysis as to whether it's a valid provision.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
I don't think that's issue is in this case.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
It's sort of the same idea.

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
I mean, DC is saying, if you're owed wages and you're working here, people better pay those wages.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
It doesn't track the details of the contractual relationship.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
It just says, employers, fair notice.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
If you're having people work for you, not even employers, if you're having people work for you here in DC, there's a mechanism for making sure they get paid.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
And part of my concern is, I mean, this is a very

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
comparatively speaking, small amount of money.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
But if we rule for you, there's a lot of structuring of subminimum wage work, of any number of ways of exploiting workers and depriving them of timely payment of their wages, that it seems to me would go along with that.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
And so I'm looking for your help in telling me

[00:23:42] Speaker 04:
what the distinctions are.

[00:23:48] Speaker 04:
corporate parent in Delaware, right?

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
That hires the employees that are performing work in DC.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
And there's a form selection clause that says you have to, we'll say France, all right?

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
In that situation, that corporate parent is still doing work in DC, employing people in DC.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
And I think the DC wage payment collection law would still apply regardless of the form selection clause in that situation.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
But here,

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
the corporate parent.

[00:24:16] Speaker 04:
So the claim isn't brought against AA Turk.

[00:24:19] Speaker 04:
The company is actually employing Miss Mills.

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
So I think that's the distinction.

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
So if the Forum Selection Clause covers only claims arising under the contract, and if this claim arises under the DC law, and if Miss Mills sued AA Turk in DC,

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
then a TURP would have to come to DC.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
And that's in your view, her mistake was signing a consultancy agreement that has a forum selection clause.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
I'm not saying it's her mistake.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
But I mean, in terms of her wanting to, having this claim and wanting to bring it here.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
I think in that situation, you know, this is a unique set of facts because most of the work was performed in Turkey, right?

[00:25:16] Speaker 04:
The contracts are contemplating a lot of the works can be performed in Turkey.

[00:25:20] Speaker 04:
Presumably, you know, Ms.

[00:25:22] Speaker 04:
Mills seems to be a sophisticated individual.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
This was an arms-like negotiation where she negotiated things like

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
you know, schooling reimbursements.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
So I do think, you know, it was a voluntary and knowing choice on her part.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
And so I, I don't want to go too far down that path because AH work is not in this case.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
But I think then the question that becomes when,

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
Where, how was dedication leave accrued?

[00:25:53] Speaker 04:
Is it accrued while she was working in Turkey or in DC?

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
And are those considered then DC wages?

[00:25:58] Speaker 04:
Which is not really the issue.

[00:25:59] Speaker 02:
She alleged they were earned when she was in DC.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
Based on an annual leave policy and most of the work was initially performed though in Turkey.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
What is your reading of any matter of controversy or dispute between the parties relates there too?

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
Are there words missing?

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
Is there a way to translate that better?

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
This is the forum selection clause on J835.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
The Ankar courts and enforcement officers shall be the exclusive authorized venues for the resolution of any matter of controversy or dispute between the parties relates thereto.

[00:26:39] Speaker 02:
We don't know relating any matter relating to what?

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
Based on the drafting, it seems it does is maybe a poor translation.

[00:26:53] Speaker 04:
But any dispute relating to between the parties, you see that a lot of times in an arbitration context.

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
You also see arising under the contract or relating to the contract.

[00:27:04] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
And I think the issue here, though, is that

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
You know, as far as Anadolu agency is concerned, that, you know, the stop-up would apply equally because these claims are being brought based, rising from this contract and her work performed for AATERP.

[00:27:26] Speaker 04:
And so she can't, you know, avail herself, sue under a contract and then disavow any sort of obligation she has under there too.

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
So.

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
The agreement doesn't contain any specific information about compensation or benefits.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Aren't those terms in the offer letter?

[00:27:41] Speaker 04:
It looks like it was redacted, the salary portion from the contract.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
So on paragraph four of the contract, he just agrees to pay and then it's blank.

[00:27:55] Speaker 04:
So I do think there is terms like for compensation, I just think it was redacted.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
There's also, I mean, it's curious in the second paragraph, the consultant is obliged to comply with the rules and regulations in the place where he tries to perform his services.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
So it actually sounds like the local law of the particular workplace applies, at least to the employee, and perhaps a mutuality principle would require that it also apply to A, Turk.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
Just sounds like it's a local law of the workplace.

[00:28:28] Speaker 04:
Yeah, it does.

[00:28:29] Speaker 04:
It says, you know, it focuses on the consultant is obliged or obligated, doesn't refer to to the Anadolu or a Turk specifically.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
And then you also have the separate provision in the offer letter that says the laws of Turkey while shall apply to the relationship.

[00:28:47] Speaker 04:
So if there's no further questions, I request work.

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:29:04] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I know you indicated that this issue was not relevant, but I just want to clarify something.

[00:29:13] Speaker 05:
The employee who terminated.

[00:29:14] Speaker 05:
My client.

[00:29:19] Speaker 05:
Was.

[00:29:19] Speaker 05:
There was an affidavit that said he was she that employee was not employed by Anadolu.

[00:29:28] Speaker 05:
That affidavit never said that that employee was employed by AA Turk.

[00:29:34] Speaker 05:
The judge, trial judge concluded that that employee was employed by AA Turk.

[00:29:45] Speaker 05:
So there was absolutely no basis for that.

[00:29:46] Speaker 05:
And that was drawing an impermissible inference.

[00:29:49] Speaker 02:
Well, and your primary position is that on a motion to dismiss that affidavit was erroneously considered.

[00:29:56] Speaker 05:
Shouldn't have been considered.

[00:29:57] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:29:57] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:29:58] Speaker 05:
Yes, your honor.

[00:29:59] Speaker 05:
That is my position.

[00:30:00] Speaker 02:
What's your response to the estoppel point that Mr. Klaproth makes, that her claim to the wages rests on her contract, even though the actual claim she's bringing in DC is under the DC law, it's for wages owed under the contract.

[00:30:19] Speaker 02:
If she's invoking the contract, she's invoking something that has a form selection clause, and that claim has to go in Turkey.

[00:30:27] Speaker 05:
Well, as I said before,

[00:30:30] Speaker 05:
The leave was not referenced anywhere in there.

[00:30:37] Speaker 05:
And a large portion of the claim relates to leave.

[00:30:43] Speaker 02:
As for the- Wasn't referenced anywhere in the contract or in the form selection clause or?

[00:30:50] Speaker 05:
The contract itself or the series of contracts do not mention leave at all.

[00:30:57] Speaker 05:
There's a salary provision in there.

[00:30:59] Speaker 05:
And I think opposing counsel was probably correct that the agreements in the record redacted the salary, but there was a salary.

[00:31:11] Speaker 05:
But the other thing is she was paid her wages, but she was paid her wages late.

[00:31:19] Speaker 05:
So it's not a claim for not paying the wages.

[00:31:23] Speaker 05:
It's the claim for paying the wages late.

[00:31:26] Speaker 05:
That falls outside the scope of the contract.

[00:31:31] Speaker 02:
Because the contract is penalized under the DC law.

[00:31:33] Speaker 02:
So she has, can you just sketch, just summarize for us, and then we'll let you sit down.

[00:31:39] Speaker 02:
The components of the pay she is seeking.

[00:31:43] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:31:45] Speaker 05:
So she's receiving 24 hours, sorry,

[00:31:52] Speaker 02:
There's a conflict and there's an error, I think, in the complaint.

[00:31:58] Speaker 05:
24 days of vacation leave, all of which was earned while she was in DC.

[00:32:05] Speaker 05:
And the way that works is in May of 2019, two months after she got there, they dumped it into her leave bank.

[00:32:14] Speaker 05:
It was an annual thing where she got it placed in her leave bank in May.

[00:32:20] Speaker 05:
So that's 20 hours.

[00:32:22] Speaker 05:
And then she worked four Turkish holidays.

[00:32:26] Speaker 05:
And those are also reimbursable as comp time.

[00:32:30] Speaker 05:
So that takes it to 24 days of leave.

[00:32:34] Speaker 02:
And are the 20 days

[00:32:38] Speaker 02:
per year?

[00:32:39] Speaker 02:
Do they expire and renew on the next year?

[00:32:41] Speaker 02:
Is this over her whole time with AA Turk?

[00:32:44] Speaker 05:
It's the anniversary date, her anniversary date of employment since she started I think in April of 2018 or the end of April, her replenishment date for the leave was one year, the one year anniversary.

[00:33:00] Speaker 02:
So it's 20 max and it just every year if it's gone down to 12, it'll go up to 20.

[00:33:05] Speaker 02:
If it's gone down to two, it'll go up to 20 or it's four and four and four and four and it had gotten that high.

[00:33:12] Speaker 05:
I believe that either she didn't have any leave left when it was replenished in May because she had used it or she lost whatever she didn't use.

[00:33:23] Speaker 02:
So it's every year it's 20.

[00:33:25] Speaker 05:
That's right.

[00:33:25] Speaker 05:
Every year it's 20.

[00:33:27] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:33:27] Speaker 02:
Zeroed out and then to 20.

[00:33:31] Speaker 05:
That's what I believe, yes.

[00:33:34] Speaker 05:
And I just asked that the court address the employer issue case.

[00:33:42] Speaker 05:
It's consistent with a prior order that the trial court issue dismissing this case because she was not an employer.

[00:33:50] Speaker 05:
If the court confines it ruling just to the personal jurisdiction issue, if the court were to find there was personal jurisdiction,

[00:33:58] Speaker 05:
and this went back to the trial court, the trial court's order theoretically would be operative at that point because the one bar to it was that the court hadn't decided personal jurisdiction.

[00:34:14] Speaker 02:
I'm concerned that- The trial judge would have to decide to reinstate it because it's been vacated by this court.

[00:34:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:34:22] Speaker 01:
Just one small point.

[00:34:24] Speaker 01:
Oh, I'm so sorry.

[00:34:26] Speaker 01:
Jessica, you were claiming

[00:34:28] Speaker 01:
for Turkish holidays and that kind of begs the question on whether or not the compensation is based on AA Turk, even though we're talking about a relationship between her vacation days and Anadolu.

[00:34:45] Speaker 05:
Well, AA Turk did provide, did pay my client and also did provide the leave policies.

[00:34:57] Speaker 05:
but those same policies were adopted by Anadolu.

[00:35:01] Speaker 05:
And it's not clear at this stage because we haven't done any discovery, the interrelationship of all that.

[00:35:07] Speaker 05:
And AA Turk may very well have determined for Anadolu, but those same policies applied to all Anadolu employees, we just don't know because we haven't had the opportunity for discovery.

[00:35:19] Speaker 01:
So it's your position on that point about the discovery that was in opposition to your motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

[00:35:27] Speaker 01:
that you were trying to rebut the extrinsic evidence that was relied on upon about Anadolu.

[00:35:33] Speaker 01:
So was it ever kind of brought up before that, before opposition?

[00:35:40] Speaker 05:
No, we had no opportunity for discovery before the motion to dismiss was filed.

[00:35:46] Speaker 05:
So it was brought up in opposition.

[00:35:49] Speaker 05:
And we didn't just request discovery on the issue of who terminated her.

[00:35:57] Speaker 05:
We I filed an affidavit requesting discovery explaining what I needed.

[00:36:04] Speaker 05:
And I incorporated that into the opposition.

[00:36:07] Speaker 05:
That's all in the record.

[00:36:09] Speaker 05:
And that affidavit specifically requested discovery on the employer issue.

[00:36:17] Speaker 05:
And it outlined lots of things I needed, including depositions.

[00:36:26] Speaker 05:
Unless the court has any more questions, I thank you for the extra time.

[00:36:31] Speaker 02:
Thank you both.

[00:36:32] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.