Kaiser v. Gortmaker
1:15-cv-01030
D.S.D.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Laura Kaiser, a DCI Special Agent, alleged sexual harassment by deputy Ross Erickson after he made sexually explicit comments; she reported it to supervisor Mark Black in Oct 2011.
- Kaiser alleges Black disclosed her complaint to coworkers, then secretly met with Erickson and others to coordinate false disparaging statements aimed at removing or firing her.
- Following coworkers’ statements, Kaiser was placed on a Work Improvement Plan, demoted, transferred, and later resigned claiming constructive discharge; she filed administrative charges and grievances.
- Kaiser sued under Title VII and the South Dakota Human Relations Act for discrimination and retaliation, and asserted a state-law tortious interference claim against Black for interfering with her employment opportunities.
- Black moved to dismiss the tortious-interference claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, arguing the claim was not part of the same case or controversy and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction.
- The court treated the motion as a facial jurisdictional challenge, concluded the tortious-interference claim shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claims, and denied Black’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state tortious-interference claim arises from the same case or controversy as federal Title VII claims | Kaiser: tortious-interference is intertwined with discrimination/retaliation facts (same nucleus) | Black: tortious-interference is separate and not part of the same case or controversy | Held: Yes — claim derives from a common nucleus of operative fact and qualifies for supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) |
| Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) | Kaiser: no compelling reason; claims use overlapping evidence and are suitable for one proceeding | Black: court should decline for judicial-economy reasons and other compelling reasons | Held: No — none of § 1367(c) factors apply; claim not novel/complex, does not predominate, and no exceptional circumstances exist |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (establishes federal courts may hear state claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims)
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103 (background authority on federal jurisdiction principles related to pendent claims)
- Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.) (distinguishes facial vs. factual attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590 (8th Cir.) (permission to consider evidence in factual jurisdictional attacks)
- Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 407 F.3d 905 (8th Cir.) (discusses facial jurisdictional review and drawing inferences for plaintiff)
- Landstrom v. Shaver, 561 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 1997) (elements of tortious interference under South Dakota law)