Castanon v. United Parcel Serv.

• Decision Date: 26 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-11679
• Parties: MATTHEW CASTANON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and ROBERT RANKIN, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

MATTHEW CASTANON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and ROBERT RANKIN, Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-11679

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

August 26, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND, REMANDING CASE, AND MAINTAINING JURISDICTION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants have removed this case a second time arguing that the Labor Management Relations Act preempts Plaintiffs Michigan civil-rights claims. For the second time, it does not. The Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have held that the LMRA does not preempt state antidiscrimination laws. Similarly controlling Michigan Supreme Court precedent holds that federal law does not preempt discrimination claims brought against employers under Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Defendants alternatively argue this Court has diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff fraudulently joined the only nondiverse party. But, as a matter of law, a party who was identified in the first complaint is not “joined” and, therefore, cannot be fraudulently joined.

For lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the case will be remanded, again. And because Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis to remove the case, this Court will maintain jurisdiction to award Plaintiff attorney's fees.

1

I.

A.

Plaintiff Matthew Castanon, a man of Hispanic heritage, began working for UPS in 1991. ECF No. 1-3 at PageID.84. Twenty-six years later, UPS promoted him to drive a semitruck on two different routes. Id. at PageID.84-85. He was the only Hispanic driver assigned to those routes. Id. As a UPS employee, he was a union member of Teamsters Local 406. See id.

After he “transported the wrong trailer on a job” in October 2019, “Defendants conspired, all together, to discriminate against Plaintiff and replace him with a Caucasian driver, Brett Coley.” Id. at PageID.85. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants repeatedly skipped discipline procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Id. He adds that two of Defendants' attempts “to terminate Plaintiff and replace him with a Caucasian were overturned” because they violated the CBA. Id.

Defendants nevertheless terminated his employment in October 2019, which Plaintiff alleges was for “putting touch-up paint on his truck.” Id. Semitruck drivers at UPS commonly used touch-up paint to make their trucks look nicer, and Plaintiffs supervisors were well aware of that practice. Id. Thus, according to Plaintiff, the paint incident was a mere pretext for Defendants to terminate his employment and to replace him with a Caucasian employee. Id. The true reason, Plaintiff claims, is his Hispanic identity.

B.

On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended three-count wrongful-termination complaint in the Tenth Circuit Court of Saginaw County. See generally Castanon v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 21-44780-CD (Mich. Cir. Ct. Saginaw Cnty. filed July 22, 2021). He sued Local Union 406, UPS, and his then-supervisor Robert Rankin. ECF No. 1-3 at PageID.83-84. Plaintiff alleges

2

Defendants terminated his employment because of his Hispanic race in violation of Michigan's Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202. Castanon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:21-CV-11942, 2022 WL 2752541, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 6, 2022). He sought at least $25,000 in damages “in addition to costs, interest, and attorney fees along with any and all legal and/or equitable relief this Court deems just.” Id.

Within a month, Defendant Local 406 removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting that Plaintiffs Michigan ELCRA claims against Local 406 were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).^[1] Id. Specifically, Local 406 argued that resolving Plaintiffs ELCRA claims would require interpretation of the CBA. Id.

In September 2021, Plaintiff stipulated to dismissing Local 406 and then filed a motion to remand the case, which was granted because the case was not properly removed and because Plaintiffs claims were not preempted by the LMRA. Id. at *2-5. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the Saginaw County Circuit Court. Id.

C.

Nine days later, Defendants UPS and Rankin removed the case, again, alleging the existence of both diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction to justify removal. ECF No. 1. With respect to diversity jurisdiction, Defendants contend that (1) Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan, (2) UPS is an Ohio corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Georgia, and (3) Robert Rankin, a Michigan citizen, should be disregarded in the removal analysis because Plaintiff cannot recover against Rankin as a matter of law. Id. at PageID.8, 11. As to

3

federal-question jurisdiction, Defendants develop their own version of the argument from the previous remand: that § 301 of the LMRA preempts Plaintiffs state-law claims because addressing his state-law claims related to his termination and later grievance will require interpretation of his CBA. Compare id. at PageID.16-17, with Castanon, 2022 WL 2752541, at *1, 4.

The parties were directed to show cause why this case should not be remanded for untimely removal because Defendants filed the notice of removal more than one year after the case was filed in the state court. ECF No. 6.

In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand.^[2] ECF No. 7. He argues Defendants untimely removed the case, that he has not acted in bad faith to prevent removal, that there is no diversity jurisdiction, and that there is no federal-question jurisdiction over the case.

Defendants, by contrast, contend that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith, that there is diversity jurisdiction, and that federal-question jurisdiction exists. ECF No. 8.

As explained hereafter, Defendants have untimely removed the case, which will be excused because Plaintiff acted in bad faith. The case will nevertheless be remanded back to the Saginaw County Circuit Court because this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

II.

Plaintiffs Complaint only pleads claims under Michigan's ELCRA. See generally ECF No. 1 at PageID.24-31, 35-44, 54-63. Similarly, Defendants' Notice of Removal is exclusively grounded on Plaintiffs ELCRA claims. See generally ECF No. 1 at PageID. 1-19.

4

The ELCRA is Michigan's antidiscrimination statute and prohibits “discriminat[ion] against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of... race.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(a).

A.

Defendants may remove “any civil action brought in state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction... to the district court of the United States ... where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

If a case would implicate diversity jurisdiction, then it may not be removed “more than 1 year after commencement of the [state-court] action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1); accord...