Maribel Hernandez v. Kohls, Inc.
5:25-cv-00813
C.D. Cal.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Maribel Hernandez sued Kohl’s, Inc., supervisor Mayra Bravo, and others for discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination following her alleged mistreatment and termination related to pregnancy accommodations while employed by Kohl’s.
- Hernandez alleged repeatedly being assigned to physically demanding tasks, in violation of her doctor’s work restrictions, after informing Kohl’s and Bravo about her pregnancy and related accommodations.
- Hernandez claims Bravo exhibited hostility towards her accommodation requests and consistently placed her in heavy-lifting departments, potentially out of discriminatory animus.
- Hernandez initiated the case in California state court; Kohl’s removed it to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction, arguing Bravo was fraudulently joined to defeat federal jurisdiction.
- Hernandez moved to remand, arguing that her harassment claim against Bravo was viable, and thus complete diversity did not exist because both she and Bravo are California citizens.
- The court determined that only state-law causes of action remained after amendments, with all federal claims dropped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bravo was fraudulently joined (remand) | Bravo is a proper defendant; FEHA claim viable | No possible claim against Bravo; only personnel decisions | Not Fraudulent; Remand granted |
| Sufficiency of harassment allegations under FEHA | Alleged conduct was discriminatory and pervasive | Actions were management decisions, not harassment | Allegations sufficed; plausible |
| Existence of complete diversity jurisdiction | Not complete; both plaintiff and Bravo are California citizens | Bravo’s citizenship should be disregarded | No complete diversity; no jurisdiction |
| Mootness of pending dismissal motion | N/A | N/A | Dismissal motion denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (proper standard for fraudulent joinder—possibility, not sufficiency, of claim)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal jurisdiction)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (removal/remand standard and fraudulent joinder)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal. 4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (FEHA harassment must be severe or pervasive)
- Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2001) (exception to complete diversity—fraudulent joinder)