Kevin Sollitt v. Keycorp, 463 F. App'x 471

Sollitt sued his employer KeyCorp in Ohio state court for wrongful termination alleging whistleblower retaliation.
KeyCorp removed to federal court under the Edge Act, § 12 U.S.C. § 632, and Sollitt moved to remand; the district court denied remand and granted summary judgment for KeyCorp on the merits.
Sollitt, Sector Manager for FX Trading, accused Guist, Sector Manager for FX Sales, of mispricing a PHC FX deal; Shade did not convey complaints to Owens.
KeyCorp conducted a company-wide email sweep; Sollitt was fired after internal findings tied to pornographic emails; Sollitt claimed the firing was in retaliation for whistleblowing.
The court must decide whether the Edge Act provides federal question jurisdiction; the appellate court ultimately agrees it does not and remands to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Edge Act provide federal jurisdiction here?	Sollitt argues the dispute arises from banking transactions and fits § 632.	KeyCorp contends the dispute falls within § 632's scope because of foreign currency transactions.	No; Edge Act jurisdiction does not lie.
Does Sollitt's claim 'arise out of' a banking transaction?	Sollitt's wrongful termination relates to foreign currency transactions.	KeyCorp asserts the termination is connected to the PHC currency deal and banking activity.	No; claim does not arise out of a banking transaction.
Was removal proper given lack of Edge Act jurisdiction?	Sollitt maintains removal was improper.	KeyCorp argues removal was proper under the Edge Act.	Remand required; lack of jurisdiction.

Diaz v. Pan American Federal Savings and Loan Association, 635 F.2d 30 (1st Cir. 1980) (malicious-prosecution not within Edge Act—banking narrowly read)
Burgos v. Citibank, N.A., 432 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2005) (distinguishes banking-related vs. other claims for Edge Act)
Bank of New York v. Bank of America, 861 F. Supp. 225 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (discusses narrow vs broad readings of § 632)