Patricia Galindo v. Hyatt Corporation
8:25-cv-00486
C.D. Cal.May 13, 2025Background
- Patricia Galindo sued Hyatt Corporation and two supervisors (Walker and Lankford), alleging workplace discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after suffering injuries and subsequent job reassignment.
- Galindo claimed Hyatt failed to accommodate her disabilities, ignored her attempts to return from leave, and ultimately terminated her employment without adequate response or reason.
- The Complaint was originally filed in Orange County Superior Court in California in January 2025.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction, relying on the premise that the supervisor defendants were "sham defendants" and therefore their California citizenship should not destroy diversity.
- Galindo filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the individual supervisors were proper defendants and thus complete diversity was lacking.
- The District Court reviewed the allegations and legal standards for supervisor liability under FEHA to determine whether removal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual supervisors were properly joined (for diversity) | Walker and Lankford are proper defendants for some FEHA claims, so diversity is destroyed | They are sham defendants; no individual supervisor liability under FEHA for most claims | Only proper as to the failure to prevent claim; complete diversity does not exist |
| Liability of supervisors under FEHA (specific claims) | Supervisors liable for multiple FEHA violations | Supervisors not individually liable except for harassment | Only liable on failure to prevent claim (harassment-related); not for other claims |
| Whether removal to federal court was proper | No proper federal jurisdiction without complete diversity | Removal is appropriate because supervisors are sham defendants | Remand granted, as supervisors are proper defendants for at least one claim |
| Amount in controversy sufficiency | Not disputed in detail | Removal met amount, relying on legal standards for calculation | Not the focus of holding; remand based on lack of complete diversity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (removing party bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (complete diversity required for federal jurisdiction)
- Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640 (Cal. 1998) (supervisors not individually liable under FEHA for discrimination)
- Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal. 4th 1158 (Cal. 2008) (no supervisor liability for retaliation under FEHA)
- Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 44 Cal. 4th 876 (Cal. 2008) (individuals cannot commit the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)