727 F.Supp.3d 867
N.D. Cal.2024Background
- Bryan Golden, a 57-year-old former Microsoft employee in California, sued Microsoft and four individual California employees for age, sex, and gender discrimination related to his termination in June 2021.
- Golden alleged that the individual defendants, all younger than him, colluded to defame and have him removed due to discriminatory animus, ultimately leading to his termination and loss of significant stock compensation.
- Golden filed 18 claims (9 against the individual employees) under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), other California statutes, and common law.
- Microsoft and one defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting that the individual defendants were fraudulently joined (i.e., added only to defeat diversity jurisdiction), so their citizenship should be disregarded.
- Golden moved to remand, asserting there was no complete diversity as he and the individual defendants are all California residents, and the federal court thus lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court considered whether there was any possibility that Golden could state a viable claim against the individual defendants under state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent Joinder of Individuals | Individuals are properly joined and liable under FEHA | Individual defendants were fraudulently joined; claims incurably deficient | There is at least a possibility of valid claims; no fraudulent joinder |
| FEHA Harassment Claims Viability | Alleges harassment based on age, sex, gender | Reports and conduct are protected personnel activities, not harassment | Allegations are sufficient to potentially support FEHA claims |
| Applicability of Janken and Sheppard | Statutory harassment claims are exempt from co-employee privilege | Individual employees immune for personnel management/reporting activities | Statutory FEHA claims are not barred; privilege does not apply |
| Denials by Individual Defendants | Disputes are factual; complaint sufficiently alleges animus | Sworn denials negate harassment/nexus to protected class | Factual denials do not defeat plausible pleading at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (federal removal under diversity requires complete diversity; forum defendant rule applies)
- Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder; possibility standard for remand)
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U.S. 146 (fraudulent joinder requires no possibility of claim against joined defendants)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (presumption against fraudulent joinder in the Ninth Circuit)
- Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 704 F.3d 1235 (elements for FEHA hostile work environment claim)
- Janken v. Hughes Elecs., 46 Cal. App. 4th 55 (distinction between harassment and personnel management; personal liability under FEHA)
- Sheppard v. Freeman, 67 Cal. App. 4th 339 (co-employee privilege does not cover statutory FEHA claims)
- Jones v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1367 (required nexus between harassment and protected category)