Ellis v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, 8:20-cv-00226

Plaintiff Matthew Ellis, a Nebraska-licensed attorney, worked for Woodmen of the World (a Nebraska fraternal benefit society) from 2006 and served as Executive VP, Secretary, General Counsel, and director until his November 2, 2019 resignation/constructive discharge.
Ellis alleges constructive discharge for refusing CEO orders he believed violated the Internal Revenue Code (esp. 26 U.S.C. §§ 409A, 501(c)(8)).
On May 15, 2020 Ellis sued in Douglas County, Nebraska, asserting: (1) wrongful termination under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA), (2) a Nebraska Wage Payment & Collection Act claim, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Woodmen removed to federal court on June 12, 2020, asserting federal-question jurisdiction; Ellis moved to remand on June 26, 2020.
The district court held it lacked federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable/Gunn framework, remanded the case to state court, denied Ellis’s request for attorneys’ fees, and denied Woodmen’s motion to compel arbitration/fees/stay without prejudice to reassertion in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question removal was proper	Ellis: claims arise under Nebraska law only	Woodmen: federal IRC issues are necessarily raised (Grable/Gunn)	Remand — federal-question jurisdiction not present
Whether the federal issue is "substantial" under Grable/Gunn	Ellis: alleged IRC issue is not substantial to federal system	Woodmen: IRC interpretation implicated, so federal interest exists	Not substantial — favors remand
Whether remand should carry an award of attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)	Ellis: requests fees/costs after successful remand	Woodmen: removal was reasonable	Fees denied — removal not objectively unreasonable
Motion to compel arbitration, stay, and award fees by Woodmen	Implicit: arbitration/fees should be decided in a court with jurisdiction	Woodmen: requested arbitration, stay, and fees in federal court	Denied without prejudice for reassertion in state court (for lack of federal jurisdiction)

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (explains ordinary and the "special and small" Grable category for federal-question jurisdiction)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (four-part test for federal jurisdiction over state-law claims asserting a federal issue)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (limits on Grable’s special jurisdictional category)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (attorney-fee awards on remand only when removal was objectively unreasonable)
Great Lakes Gas Transmission LP v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2016) (Eighth Circuit application rejecting Grable jurisdiction in similar context)
Phipps v. F.D.I.C., 417 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) (removal standard and federal jurisdiction principles)
Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 662 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2003) (Nebraska standard: employee protected when they reasonably and in good faith believe employer act unlawful)
Oldfield v. Neb. Mach. Co., 894 N.W.2d 278 (Neb. 2017) (clarifies the reasonableness requirement for NFEPA whistleblower protection)