Tammy Bell v. Jon Thornburg, 743 F.3d 84

Bell, an African-American former office manager for the Chapter 13 standing trustee in W.D. La., sued Thornburg alleging race-based termination under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL).
Thornburg, the Chapter 13 standing trustee (appointed under the U.S. Trustee Program), removed the state-law suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
The magistrate judge recommended remand based on older precedent treating trustees as court officers not federal officers and found Thornburg’s removal pleading inadequate; the district court denied remand.
The district court held removal proper (relying on § 1442 and the trustee’s relationship to the U.S. Trustee) and concluded Thornburg averred a colorable federal defense tied to peer-review and involvement of the U.S. Trustee and a bankruptcy judge.
The district court granted summary judgment to Thornburg because he did not employ ≥20 employees for ≥20 weeks as required for LEDL coverage; Bell provided no admissible evidence to aggregate the larger Chapter 13 system.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: removal under § 1442 was proper and Thornburg is not an "employer" under the LEDL, so summary judgment was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 was proper	Cromelin controls: trustees are court officers, not acting under federal officers, so remand required	Thornburg acts under and is supervised by the U.S. Trustee and thus may remove under § 1442; he averred federal defenses	Removal was proper: trustees act under U.S. Trustee authority post-1978 reforms and § 1442 applies
Whether Thornburg averred a colorable federal defense for § 1442 removal	Thornburg’s conclusory removal pleading is insufficient	Thornburg alleged his employment actions were performed under color of office, involving peer review, U.S. Trustee and a bankruptcy judge, giving a colorable federal defense	Thornburg’s averment was sufficient (Willingham/Palermo standards); federal defense is colorable
Whether Thornburg could remove under § 1442(a)(3) as an officer of the courts	Remand because trustees are court officers (Cromelin)	Thornburg fits within § 1442(a)(1) as acting under federal officers (U.S. Trustee); § 1442(a)(3) analysis unnecessary	Court treats Thornburg as "acting under" federal officers (U.S. Trustee) and § 1442(a)(1) supports removal
Whether Thornburg is an "employer" under the LEDL (≥20 employees/20 weeks)	Bell: aggregate the Chapter 13 system to reach the threshold	Thornburg: he did not employ ≥20 employees and Bell offered no evidence to aggregate	Thornburg is not an employer under LEDL; summary judgment affirmed

Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (Supreme Court 2007) (explains "acting under" requirement and limits of § 1442 for private parties)
Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court 1969) (removal may be based on asserted federal defenses; officer need not win before removal)
Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (Supreme Court 1989) (requires averment of colorable federal defense for § 1442 removal)
Palermo v. Rorex, 806 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1987) (applies Willingham; actions connected to federal employment support removal)
Cromelin v. United States, 177 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1949) (historically characterized bankruptcy trustees as court officers, pre‑Bankruptcy Reform Act)
Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (Supreme Court 1999) (federal-law defense can supply federal-question element for removal)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard)