Branyan v. Southwest Airlines Co.
105 F. Supp. 3d 120
D. Mass.2015Background
- Branyan, a Southwest flight attendant, was placed on paid leave after a wrist injury and received paid benefits until her workers’ compensation claim was denied in Sept. 2013.
- Southwest allegedly sought reimbursement (~$4,500) from Branyan, debited her sick bank, and made repeated calls; Branyan routed calls to her attorney and later disputed requests to return to work due to surgery.
- After >25 unsuccessful calls in Feb–Mar 2014, Southwest asked Halifax police to perform a welfare check at Branyan’s home; police contacted her and advised she call her employer.
- Three days after the welfare check, Southwest terminated Branyan; she alleged severe emotional harm (stress, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts).
- Branyan sued in Massachusetts Superior Court asserting: intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; invasion of privacy (M.G.L. c. 223, § 1); and bullying/harassment (Count IV was later stipulated dismissed). Southwest removed the case to federal court.
- Procedurally: Court previously denied Branyan’s first remand motion (citizenship). Branyan moved to remand again (challenging amount in controversy); Southwest moved to dismiss Counts I–III. The Court resolved both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction remains despite plaintiff’s later lower settlement position | Branyan argued settlement negotiations now value the case below $75,000, so remand is required | Southwest argued amount in controversy is measured at removal and subsequent reductions don’t divest jurisdiction | Denied remand; amount assessed at removal, later diminution irrelevant; each party bears own costs |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred by MWCA exclusivity | Branyan argued injuries occurred while on administrative leave and thus outside MWCA scope | Southwest argued injuries arose from employment relationship and are barred by MWCA §24 exclusivity | Dismissed: MWCA exclusivity bars Counts I (intentional) and II (negligent) because conduct related to employment and she remained an employee |
| Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred by MWCA exclusivity | Branyan contended leave status removed claim from MWCA coverage | Southwest maintained leave status is irrelevant; actions arose from employment duties | Dismissed: same reasoning as above; leave does not remove employment context |
| Whether contacting police for a wellness check and disclosing name/address/employment supports a statutory invasion of privacy claim | Branyan argued police welfare check after employer disclosure was a severe, unreasonable intrusion | Southwest argued facts disclosed (name, address, employer) are not highly intimate; employer had legitimate business interest after repeated unsuccessful contacts | Dismissed: no dissemination of highly personal facts and no substantial/unreasonable intrusion; employer’s business need justified the contact |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (federal jurisdiction measured at time of removal)
- Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (amount in controversy measured when diversity jurisdiction invoked)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Acciavatti v. Prof'l Servs. Grp., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 69 (D. Mass.) (MWCA exclusivity bars employee tort claims arising from employment)
- Fusaro v. Blakely, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 120 (Mass. App. Ct.) (MWCA exclusivity discussed re: employee torts)
- McArdle v. Town of Dracut/Dracut Pub. Sch., 732 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.) (IIED claims barred by MWCA exclusivity)
- Doe v. Purity Supreme, Inc., 422 Mass. 563 (Mass.) (scope of employment and motivating desire to serve employer)
- Bratt v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 392 Mass. 508 (Mass.) (privacy statute requires disclosure of highly personal facts)
- Nelson v. Salem State Coll., 446 Mass. 525 (Mass.) (elements of statutory invasion of privacy)
- French v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass.) (balancing employer’s legitimate need against privacy intrusion)
- Purple Passion, Inc. v. RCN Telecom Servs., Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 245 (S.D.N.Y.) (plaintiff cannot avoid federal jurisdiction by later reducing damages demand)