Davis v. Oliver Street Dermatology Management, LLC
4:17-cv-00250
W.D. Mo.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff filed an initial state-court petition (Jan 2017) mentioning the FMLA and alleging FMLA retaliation; defendant removed and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that suit.
- Plaintiff filed a second state-court petition (Feb 24, 2017); defendant removed that case to federal court.
- In federal court plaintiff amended her complaint alleging disability (depression/anxiety), that she took intensive outpatient treatment in Feb–Mar 2016, returned to work Mar 29, 2016, and was fired Apr 4, 2016.
- Amended complaint pleads only Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) claims: failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing no federal question is presented; defendant contended the complaint actually alleges an FMLA retaliation claim and federal law is implicated.
- The court granted remand, finding no complete preemption and that MHRA retaliation claims can be resolved without deciding FMLA rights; costs were not awarded to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Amended complaint raises only MHRA claims; leave as an accommodation under MHRA, not FMLA | Plaintiff’s prior petition and factual allegations show intent to plead FMLA retaliation; resolution requires FMLA interpretation | No federal-question jurisdiction; remand granted |
| Whether FMLA completely preempts MHRA claims | No complete preemption; FMLA does not displace state law | Removal proper if FMLA claim is concealed | Complete preemption does not apply |
| Whether state-law MHRA claims necessarily raise a central federal issue | MHRA retaliation elements do not require adjudication of FMLA rights | Defendant: resolution will require determining FMLA violation | Court: federal law is not a necessary, central element; state law governs |
| Whether fees should be awarded for improper removal | Plaintiff seeks costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Defendants argue removal was objectively reasonable given earlier petition | No fees awarded; removal was objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal-question must appear on face of well-pleaded complaint)
- Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536 (8th Cir.) (complete preemption and necessity-of-federal-issue doctrines explained)
- Shirrell v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 793 F.3d 881 (8th Cir.) (elements of MHRA retaliation)
- McCrainey v. Kan. City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. Ct. App.) (Missouri retaliation causation and standards)
- Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Prods., Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (Mo.) (retaliation defined under Missouri law)
- Bellido–Sullivan v. American Int'l Grp., Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 161 (S.D.N.Y.) (FMLA does not completely preempt state-law claims)