Elaref v. Able Services
4:16-cv-06316
N.D. Cal.May 1, 2017Background
- Elaref, a Tunisian/Arab Able Services employee and SEIU Local 87 member, took CFRA family leave to care for his terminally ill wife; he returned to work in April 2015 and was immediately told he was terminated.
- Plaintiff alleges he was denied reinstatement and not dispatched by the union after termination because of national origin and in retaliation for taking CFRA leave and filing an EEOC/DFEH charge.
- Plaintiff sued in California state court asserting CFRA and FEHA claims (interference and retaliation), failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and IIED; SEIU removed under §301 LMRA complete-preemption.
- Magistrate recommended remand and an award of attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c); SEIU objected and sought relief from the magistrate’s nondispositive order.
- The district court reviewed de novo, applied the Burnside two-step preemption test, concluded none of Plaintiff’s claims required interpretation of the CBA, denied SEIU’s objections, remanded the case to state court, and awarded $7,875 in fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SEIU properly removed the case via §301/complete-preemption | Elaref argues his state-law CFRA/FEHA and common-law claims do not depend on CBA rights and therefore are not completely preempted | SEIU contends resolution requires interpreting CBA (classification permanent vs. temporary) so §301 completely preempts state claims | Court: Removal improper; claims are not completely preempted because they do not require CBA interpretation |
| CFRA interference (failure to restore) | Elaref says he was entitled to reinstatement after CFRA leave and was terminated instead | SEIU says reinstatement/adverse-action questions turn on CBA classification as temporary vs. permanent | Court: CFRA interference claim independent of CBA; not preempted |
| CFRA retaliation / FEHA discrimination and retaliation | Elaref alleges termination and refusal to restore were retaliatory/discriminatory based on leave and national origin | SEIU argues adverse action determination requires interpreting CBA permanence rules | Court: Claims rest on state-law rights and can be resolved without interpreting CBA; not preempted |
| Award of attorney's fees for improper removal under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) | Elaref sought fees for improper removal; argued SEIU lacked objectively reasonable basis | SEIU initially did not oppose fees in opposition; later objected to magistrate recommendation | Court: SEIU lacked objectively reasonable basis; award of $7,875 affirmed; SEIU waived some objections by failing to contest fee request earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (recognizes complete-preemption exception to well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (complete preemption can convert state claim into federal claim)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (two-step test for §301 preemption)
- Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.) (focus on legal character of claim; CBA-based rights only preempt claims that exist solely by virtue of CBA)
- Ward v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 473 F.3d 994 (9th Cir.) (defensive reliance on a CBA does not alone mandate preemption)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (awarding attorney fees under §1447(c) requires lack of objectively reasonable basis for removal)