Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp.

Citation438 F.3d 544
Decision Date15 February 2006
Docket NumberNo. 03-4591.,03-4591.
PartiesJohn T. EASTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARINE MECHANICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

ARGUED: Steven D. Bell, Simon Law Firm, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael N. Chesney, Frantz Ward, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Steven D. Bell, Ann-Marie Ahern, Simon Law Firm, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Michael N. Chesney, Thomas Merritt Bumpass, Jr., Frantz Ward, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: SILER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; LAWSON, District Judge.*

OPINION

DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff John Eastman appeals from the decision of the district court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on an Ohio common-law claim of retaliatory employment discharge in violation of public policy. The complaint, originally filed in an Ohio state court, identified federal law as the source of the public policy violated by the defendant, and it was on that basis that the defendant claimed in its removal notice that the case "[arose] under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States," 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b), and thus was "removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). We hold, however, that the plaintiff's state-law employment claim alleging wrongful discharge in violation of federal public policy does not raise a substantial federal question over which federal courts may exercise original or removal jurisdiction, because accepting such cases would be "[in]consistent with congressional judgment about the sound division of labor between state and federal courts governing the application of § 1331." Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 2367, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005). Because we find that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, we will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to remand the matter to the state court whence it came.

I.

John T. Eastman, a resident of Ohio, began his employment with TRW, Inc., a corporate predecessor of the defendant, in 1984. He was trained in metallurgy at Case Western Reserve University, and he began in a position as a metallurgical engineer. The defendant, Marine Mechanical Corporation, manufactures component parts for nuclear reactors used on vessels of the United States Navy. It is an Ohio corporation.

Marine Mechanical's supply contract with the Navy's prime contractor calls for a demanding quality assurance program because the parts face exposure to extreme temperature, pressure, and irradiating conditions and must conform to the Navy's maintenance requirements. All employees must read and sign acknowledgments that they will adhere to Marine Mechanical's quality assurance program by reporting any contractual violations. Marine Mechanical emphasizes its expectations for employee adherence to this obligation in a procedure manual that specifically provides that employees must "bring possible violations of this policy" to a supervisor or officer of the company. J.A. at 198.

Over the last ten years of his employment, Eastman received high performance ratings and significant pay increases from the defendant each year. The defendant praised Eastman in a performance appraisal issued eight months before termination. Eastman advanced to the position of Manager of the Materials Engineering Section.

Eastman alleges, however, that he became a victim of a shift in his employer's business focus because of his steadfast adherence to quality control requirements, while the company turned its priorities toward production schedules and profitability at the expense of quality. On November 3, 2000, he claims Marine Mechanical's president demoted him from Manager of Materials Engineering to Principal Engineer after being informed that the company "wanted to be doing things faster." Eastman claims that the demotion was precipitated by his refusal to test a part in a way he believed would produce inaccurate results. Marine Mechanical contends the title change resulted from a new organizational structure but acknowledges that the change put Eastman under the supervision of Mark Centa, who previously had worked in a position subservient to Eastman.

On February 9, 2001, Eastman in his new position submitted a written memorandum notifying Marine Mechanical supervisors of quality control deficiencies, which included warnings that a certain process possibly violated Marine Mechanical's contractual obligations, the purchase of substandard fasteners used in products, and the receipt of certain component parts after a vendor inaccurately tested their hardness strength. Marine Mechanical conducted an investigation and concluded that Eastman's notification made unfounded allegations of fraud against Centa, Eastman's supervisor. On February 23, 2001, Eastman submitted a revised memorandum to clarify some unsupported statements made in the earlier memorandum. Marine Mechanical contended that the memoranda only identified problems that caused delay and cost increases and personally attacked Centa. It chastised Eastman with a written "Disciplinary Warning" on February 27, 2001.

Eastman continued in his position as Principal Engineer and regularly raised issues related to product quality as part of his normal duties. He alleges that the company became resistant to his quality control efforts. On July 23, 2001, Eastman submitted a letter responding to the earlier disciplinary warning and raising new product quality issues. The new letter alleged that others in the company had misrepresented some vendor requirements, failed to ensure accurate testing of a piece of wire, and used an uncertified welder to complete some work. Marine Mechanical says that it thoroughly investigated the allegations, concluded that the quality issues had been identified to the company's customer, and found no evidence of intentional misrepresentations made by employees. Although Eastman insists that his letter represented his attempt to comply with the stated company policies of identifying possible violations of quality control standards by this government contractor, Marine Mechanical determined that Eastman's letter constituted another attempt to discredit other employees.

According to Marine Mechanical, the July 2001 letter amounted to an act of misconduct in the same vein as Eastman's prior transgression in February 2001 for which he received his disciplinary warning. The defendant decided to fire him. Two company officers notified Eastman of the termination on September 27, 2001. When discussing the reasons for the action, the officers stated that Eastman was terminated for making more unfounded and meritless allegations.

On May 30, 2002, Eastman filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas alleging that Marine Mechanical committed a tort under Ohio law by wrongfully firing him in violation of public policy. The public policy Eastman set forth had its source entirely in the federal statutes cited in the complaint. He contended that his expressed concerns over the quality of the parts the defendant was manufacturing as a government contractor caused his employer to silence him "by first reassigning him and removing his responsibilities for quality control and, ultimately, terminating his employment." Compl. ¶ 9, J.A. at 10. Eastman then alleged:

10. There is a clear public policy, manifested in federal statutes and regulations, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 31 U.S.C. § 3729, prohibiting the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the military or federal government.

11. By failing to comply with its contractual obligations related to quality control for parts produced pursuant to Marine Mechanical's contracts to produce parts for use by the United States Navy, Marine Mechanical submitted false or fraudulent claims, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 31 U.S.C. § 3729.

12. Marine Mechanical's decision to discharge Eastman on September 27, 2001 was motivated by . . . Eastman's complaints regarding quality control related to parts produced by Marine Mechanical for use by the United States Navy pursuant to Marine Mechanical's defense contracts and the submission of claims for payment for these parts in violation of federal law.

J.A. at 10. Eastman claimed economic damages in excess of $2 million due to an inability to find employment, and he alleged unspecified non-economic damages as well.

On July 9, 2002, the defendant filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Four weeks later, Eastman filed a motion to remand and an amended complaint; Marine Mechanical had not yet filed its answer. The amended complaint included citations to Ohio law as additional sources of public policy, to which the plaintiff referred in support of his motion to remand. The amended complaint alleged the following:

There is a clear public policy, manifested in various state and federal statutes and regulations, including but not limited to O.R.C. 4113.5 (the Ohio Whistleblower statute), O.R.C. 2921.12 (falsification), and 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 31 U.S.C. § 3729, prohibiting the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the military or federal government. Marine Mechanical's conduct also violates the clear public policy manifested in the tort of fraud.

J.A. at 45.

In his remand motion, Eastman argued that a federal question was not well pled in his (amended) complaint because his claim was not based on federal law; rather the claim arose under Ohio law. He also contended that citation to federal statutes as the source of public policy created no compelling federal interest, especially when state statutes are cited as well. The district court denied the motion without a hearing on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
407 cases
  • Hudak v. Elmcr T of Sagamore Hills
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • August 19, 2021
    ...seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that the district court has original jurisdiction." Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp. , 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only the power authorized by the United States Constitution ......
  • Minton v. Paducah & Louisville Ry., Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19CV-00074-JHM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • October 28, 2019
    ...party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing that the district court has original jurisdiction. Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case sh......
  • Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp., 03-4486.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 21, 2007
    ...approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Id. at 314, 125 S.Ct. 2363; accord Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 552 (6th Cir. 2006). 1. The plaintiffs' theory certainly appears to raise a disputed federal issue: whether 26 U.S.C. § 312(n)(1) requires capital......
  • Mays v. City of Flint, 16-2484.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 11, 2017
    ...the party seeking removal, the MDEQ Defendants bear the burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction. Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp. , 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). Where, as here, the district court treats the motion to remand as a facial attack on the court's jurisdiction, we loo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • January 1, 2014
    ...F.3d 398, 403 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Williams, 482 U.S. at 393). 34. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 13; Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 552 (6th Cir. 2006); Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 440 F.3d 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2006). Subject Matter Jurisdiction 275 attenuated and unsu......
  • Jennifer E. Fairbairn, Keeping Grable Slim: Federal Question Jurisdiction and the Centrality Test
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 58-4, 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...about congressional intent' that Sec. 1331 requires." (quoting Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 810 (1986))). 195 438 F.3d 544, 547 (6th Cir. 2006). 196 Id. 197 Id. 198 Id. at 548. 199 Id. One of the defendant's major clients was the Navy, and the plaintiff alleged that "......
  • Solving Jurisdiction's Social Cost
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 89-3, March 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...reversals" on appeal). 319. See, e.g., Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1117-18 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 549 (6th Cir. 2006). 320. Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009). 321. Congress has recognized the efficiency benefit of i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT