Parker v. Comprehensive Logistics Co., Inc.
1:19-cv-00013
M.D. Tenn.Mar 18, 2019Background
- Anthony Parker, an African‑American over 40, was hired Aug. 1, 2018 as an operations supervisor and resigned Aug. 8, 2018 after being given a corrective action form and job expectations; he later received an EEOC right‑to‑sue letter.
- Parker previously filed a pro se federal suit (Case No. 1:18‑00065) alleging ADEA and state claims; the court dismissed federal claims with prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Parker filed a state‑court complaint in Maury County (Dec. 7, 2018) asserting two state law claims: (1) violation of Tennessee public policy / implied contract employment‑at‑will exception and (2) negligent retention of supervisors and retaliation; the state complaint omitted federal claims.
- Defendant removed the Maury County case to federal court on Jan. 10, 2019, invoking diversity jurisdiction (corporate defendant and alleged > $75,000).
- Parker moved to remand (styled as motions to quash removal), asserting untimely removal and waiver/estoppel based on the prior federal case; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Magistrate Judge recommends denying remand and granting dismissal with prejudice for failure to state viable state‑law claims (employment‑at‑will exception not pleaded; negligent‑retention/ tort barred or unsupported; THRA claims inadequately pled).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Removal untimely; Defendant served Dec. 10, 2018 | Service on defendant's registered agent occurred Dec. 13, 2018; notice filed Jan. 10, 2019 within 30 days | Removal timely; remand denied |
| Waiver/estoppel based on prior federal case | Defendant waived right to remove by not objecting when court declined supplemental jurisdiction in prior case | Prior inaction in different case does not waive statutory removal right | No waiver; remand denied |
| Viability of public‑policy (wrongful/retaliatory termination) claim | Termination/constructive discharge and unlawful requests violated Tennessee public policy | Complaint fails to identify a clear, unambiguous public policy or statutory/regulatory violation | Claim fails under Tennessee at‑will exception; dismissed |
| Negligent retention / tort claim and THRA discrimination allegations | Alleges negligent retention and discrimination (race, age, sex, retaliation) | Facts insufficient to plead a cognizable tort or discrimination claim; workers’ comp exclusivity may bar tort | Negligent‑retention/tort claim unsupported and likely barred; THRA/discrimination claims inadequately pled; all claims dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; complaint must state plausible claim)
- Clanton v. Cain Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441 (Tenn. 1984) (retaliatory discharge/wrongful termination analysis in Tennessee)
- Bender v. Hecht's Dep't Stores, 455 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006) (THRA claims analyzed like federal anti‑discrimination claims)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports)
- Vogel v. U.S. Office Prods. Co., 258 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2001) (treatment of remand motions as dispositive for magistrate judge reports)