Rebecca Shupe v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company
566 F. App'x 476
6th Cir.2014Background
- Rebecca Shupe was hired by Asplundh in August 2008 and signed a one‑page “Limitation on Time to File Claims or Lawsuits” waiver requiring suits be filed within six months of the employment action.
- Shupe was terminated in August 2011 and filed a Kentucky Civil Rights Act suit in state court on August 10, 2012—more than six months after termination.
- Asplundh removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; Shupe moved to remand arguing the amount in controversy did not meet $75,000.
- Asplundh moved for summary judgment arguing Shupe’s claims were time‑barred by the six‑month waiver she signed as a condition of employment.
- The district court denied remand, found by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 (including projected back pay, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages possibility), and granted summary judgment for Asplundh because Shupe did not timely file within six months and the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily executed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had subject‑matter jurisdiction under diversity (amount in controversy) | Shupe argued her claims did not exceed $75,000; pre‑suit demand was $60,000 and her affidavit said she never sought >$75,000 | Asplundh argued projected back pay through trial plus emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and possible punitive damages put amount in controversy over $75,000 | Court held amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 by preponderance of evidence; remand denied |
| Enforceability of six‑month statute‑of‑limitations waiver signed at hire | Shupe argued acceptance was not knowing and voluntary (no explanation, no time to consult attorney, no copy provided) | Asplundh argued waiver was clear, supported by consideration (employment/wages), and plaintiff gave no evidence of fraud or request for more time | Court held waiver was knowing and voluntary under factors from Morrison; waiver enforceable |
| Whether Walker arbitration precedent voided the waiver | Shupe relied on Walker to show on‑the‑spot signing can be involuntary | Asplundh distinguished Walker: arbitration affects forum and involved lengthy, misleading paperwork; here waiver was one clear page | Court found Walker distinguishable and not controlling |
| Whether post‑removal statements/demand letter required remand | Shupe relied on settlement demand ($60,000) and post‑suit affidavit disclaiming >$75,000 | Asplundh argued demand letter is not dispositive and post‑removal affidavit must be unequivocal to reduce amount in controversy | Court held demand letter and affidavit did not defeat federal jurisdiction; only unequivocal stipulation would require remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Music v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 632 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for remand denial)
- Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2001) (amount‑in‑controversy fair reading rule and punitive damages inclusion)
- Gafford v. Gen. Elec., 997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993) (back pay beyond removal when future accruals are sought)
- Rogers v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (post‑removal stipulation reducing amount in controversy does not require remand)
- Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004) (six‑month employment limitations waiver can be reasonable)
- Walker v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 400 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2005) (circumstances where on‑the‑spot signing rendered arbitration agreement involuntary)