Kenneth Griffith v. Alcon Research, Limited
712 F. App'x 406
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Griffith sued former employer Alcon in Texas state court alleging national-origin and racial discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code.
- Griffith’s complaint cited Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.051 and 21.055 and attached a Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) notice permitting a private state-court action; it referenced (but did not attach) an EEOC charge and a right-to-sue notice.
- Alcon removed the case to federal court, arguing the complaint implicitly raised Title VII federal questions and so federal jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Griffith moved to remand, arguing his complaint pleaded only state-law claims; the district court denied remand, retained jurisdiction, and later granted Alcon summary judgment.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit held that Griffith’s well-pleaded complaint relied exclusively on state law and did not on its face present a federal cause of action, so the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to return the case to state court; it declined to award fees because Alcon’s removal was objectively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had § 1331 jurisdiction | Griffith argued complaint pleaded only state-law claims under Texas Labor Code | Alcon argued references to EEOC/right-to-sue and facts supporting discrimination implicitly invoked Title VII | Held: No federal-question jurisdiction; complaint did not on its face present a federal cause of action |
| Whether referencing EEOC charge converts state claim to federal | Griffith: mere factual overlap with federal claims does not create jurisdiction | Alcon: referencing EEOC matters and right-to-sue supports removal | Held: Mere reference to EEOC or facts that could support federal claims is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction |
| Whether district court’s denial of remand and entry of judgment was valid | Griffith: district court lacked jurisdiction so judgment void | Alcon: removal was proper, so district court could adjudicate | Held: District court erred; judgment vacated and case remanded to state court |
| Whether plaintiff entitled to attorney’s fees for wrongful removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Griffith: sought fees because removal was improper | Alcon: removal was objectively reasonable | Held: No fees awarded; removal, while improper, was objectively reasonable given EEOC/right-to-sue references |
Key Cases Cited
- Elam v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint rule and federal jurisdiction review)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (plaintiff may elect state remedies and avoid federal jurisdiction)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (test for when a case "arises under" federal law)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (standard for awarding fees on improper removal)