State File No. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment. At that time claimant did not have the necessary valid driver's license. After that conversation, claimant started work in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Claimant asserts that he was in Vermont during that conversation.
Defendant performs business in Vermont and leases or uses warehouses in Vermont.
Where both parties seek summary judgment, each is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists when the opposing party's motion is being judged. In the alternative, claimant argues that 620 also supports jurisdiction in Vermont because Vermont can reasonably determine the rights of the claimant, defendant has substantial and sufficient contacts with Vermont, and defendant would use Vermont courts for its benefit and protection if need be. The defendant argues that plaintiff was hired outside Vermont because the employment contract could only be accepted by performance, and claimant accepted the offer by showing up for work in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Defendant also argues that asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 620 would violate defendant's Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because defendant does not have the requisite minimum contacts with Vermont. This is a genuine difference of a material fact.