Ange v. Parker-Hannifin Corporation
1:15-cv-02228
N.D. OhioJun 28, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Frederick Ange sued Parker Hanifan Corporation in Ohio state court for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- Count Eight alleges termination in retaliation for reporting alleged violations of state and federal law, including possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other statutes.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing federal-question jurisdiction under Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections (15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)).
- Plaintiff moved to remand; defendant opposed removal, asserting the Complaint necessarily raises federal law.
- The district court considered the well-pleaded complaint rule and whether the state-law public policy claim raises a substantial federal issue requiring federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction supports removal | Ange: Complaint alleges state-law wrongful termination only; no federal claim pleaded | Parker Hanifan: Allegations about reporting FCPA violations invoke Dodd-Frank retaliation protections, creating a federal question | Remand granted — no federal claim pleaded; well-pleaded complaint controls |
| Whether resolution of the public-policy claim requires construction of federal law | Ange: State public-policy claim focuses on reporting conduct, not on whether federal law was violated | Parker Hanifan: Plaintiff’s reliance on reporting federal violations makes federal law a necessary issue | Court: No — the claim does not require deciding whether reported conduct violated federal law; no substantial federal issue exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts limited to jurisdiction conferred by Constitution and Congress)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question removal)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal statutes construed strictly; doubts resolved for remand)
- Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1999) (ambiguities in removal procedure resolved in favor of remand)
- Greely v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St. 3d 228 (1990) (recognition of Ohio public-policy wrongful termination claim)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers’ Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (standard for when a state claim presents a substantial federal issue)