What legal principle prevented the employee's claim against the shoe company in State C?

The legal principle that prevented the employee's claim against the shoe company in State C is the absence of connections to State C. For a court to have jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the state in which the court is located. This is grounded in the principles of due process, which require that a defendant can reasonably foresee being haled into court in that jurisdiction based on their activities there.

In this context, if the shoe company had no meaningful connections to State C—such as conducting business there, having an office, or any other significant activities—then the court in State C would not be able to assert personal jurisdiction over the company. Consequently, the employee's claim would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the company would not be considered to be subject to the laws and courts of that state. This principle underscores the importance of establishing a legal connection between the parties and the forum state in civil litigation.