Howard v. Food Lion, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1:01-CV-00981.,1:01-CV-00981.
• Citation: 232 F.Supp.2d 585
• Parties: Victoria HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, INC., Mr. Ray Holt, individually and in his official capacity as Store Manager Store 274; Mr. Eddie Glasco, individually and in his capacity as Store Manager Store 274; Mr. Rodney Jackson, individually and in his capacity as Supervisor; Mr. Mark Dinse, individually and in his capacity as Regional Human Resource Manager; and Mr. John F. Pendergrass, individually and in his capacity as Employment Security Commission/Appeals Referee, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina

232 F.Supp.2d 585

Victoria HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. FOOD LION, INC., Mr. Ray Holt, individually and in his official capacity as Store Manager Store 274; Mr. Eddie Glasco, individually and in his capacity as Store Manager Store 274; Mr. Rodney Jackson, individually and in his capacity as Supervisor; Mr. Mark

Dinse, individually and in his capacity as Regional Human Resource Manager; and Mr. John F. Pendergrass, individually and in his capacity as Employment Security Commission/Appeals Referee, Defendants.

No. 1:01-CV-00981.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina.

October 23, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Victoria Howard, Durham, NC, pro se.

Harley Harrell Jones, Edwards Ballard Clark Barrett and Carlson, P.A., Winston-Salem, NC, for Ray Holt, Eddie Glasco, Rodney Jackson, Mark Dinse.

Charles E. Monteith, Jr., Fred R. Gamin, C. Coleman Billingsley, Jr., Employment Sec. Com'n of N.C., Raleigh, NC, for John F. Pendergrass.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

OSTEEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Victoria Howard, acting pro se, brought this action in Durham County District Court on September 25, 2001. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief from Food Lion, Inc., several of its executives and managers, and an appeals referee for the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985; the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.; and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Plaintiff also alleges violations of North Carolina's Employment Security Law, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 96-18(b). Defendants removed to this court on October 25, 2001.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand,¹ Defendants' Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer.

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand will be denied, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss will be granted, and Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer will be dismissed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Victoria Howard worked as a cashier and front-end assistant for Defendant Food Lion in Durham, North Carolina. In December 2000, the company terminated her employment. When Plaintiff protested this action under Food Lion's internal grievance procedure, she received no response. Plaintiff next sought unemployment compensation, filing an application for benefits with the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (ESC) on January 7, 2001. Food Lion submitted a response to this application, alleging that Plaintiff had been fired for dishonesty. Because North Carolina law does not award unemployment benefits immediately to workers who have been discharged due to their own "substantial fault," an ESC adjudicator ruled against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that on subsequent applications for employment, her decision to list "ethical reasons" for her termination, a suggestion made by an ESC employee, prevented her from finding another job.

After the ESC denied Plaintiff's application for unemployment benefits, the matter was assigned to John F. Pendergrass, an appeals referee for the agency.² Mr. Pendergrass initially ruled against Plaintiff after a hearing on March 8, 2001, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits for a period of nine weeks. When Plaintiff appealed this finding, however, the chairman of the ESC vacated the decision based on a procedural error: Mr Pendergrass had failed to issue a subpoena for the production of documents as requested by Plaintiff. The record does not indicate whether Plaintiff received benefits for the nine-week period. Plaintiff filed this action on September 1, 2001.

II. MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff moves to remand this case to state court on two grounds. First, Plaintiff asserts that removal was improper because of the well-pleaded complaint rule. Second, Plaintiff contends that the claims against Defendant Pendergrass must be remanded because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from adjudicating claims against state officials.

A. Standard of Review

Removal of claims is appropriate if the federal court would have had jurisdiction over the original claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Statutory provisions permitting removal must be strictly applied, and federal jurisdiction over such claims should not spill beyond these statutory boundaries. See id.; Freeman v. Bechtel, 936 F.Supp. 320, 323 (M.D.N.C.1996). The burden of demonstrating removal jurisdiction rests with the party seeking to keep the case in federal court, not the party moving for remand. Freeman, 936 F.Supp. at 323.

When presented with a motion to remand, a federal district court must ascertain whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before considering a defendant's motion to dismiss. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1012, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, a category that includes claims based on a cause of action created by federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3232, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260, 36 S.Ct. 585, 586, 60 L.Ed. 987 (1916)). Upon removal, the court in its discretion may assert jurisdiction over claims forming part of the same case or controversy as the federal question claim, or it may remand such claims in which state law predominates. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (noting that supplemental jurisdiction extends to claims that "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" as the federal question claim). In making this determination, "a federal court should consider and weigh ... the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Chicago v. International Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S.Ct. 523, 534, 139 L.Ed.2d 525 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)).

B. Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

The well-pleaded complaint rule mandates that a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint for a claim to arise under federal law for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987); Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). Here, Plaintiff asserts multiple claims, several of which arise under federal law. The state law claims arise from the same controversy: Plaintiff's termination and subsequent pursuit of unemployment compensation. Judicial economy suggests that they should be adjudicated together. Because the complaint itself raises federal questions central to the dispute, Plaintiff's reliance on the well-pleaded complaint rule is inappropriate. Accordingly Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the claims against the Food Lion Defendants will be denied.

C. Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff argues that her claims against Mr. Pendergrass should be remanded because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the court from asserting subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Mr. Pendergrass counters that the mere existence of an alternative sovereign immunity defense does not require the court to remand Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff sues Mr. Pendergrass as an individual and in his official capacity. A state official may be liable in his individual capacity under § 1983 for acts taken under color of state law, even if those acts are performed within the scope of the official's authority. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 365, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the Eleventh Amendment "provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law." Id. at 30, 112 S.Ct. at 364 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)). Without this shield, the court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Mr. Pendergrass in his individual capacity. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand those claims will be denied.

It is well established that a suit lodged against a state official in his official capacity should be treated as an action against the state. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25, 112 S.Ct. at 361. As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from asserting jurisdiction over claims for damages against a state filed by a citizen of that state. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 18-19, 10 S.Ct. 504, 508, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). This broad immunity extends to suits arising under federal law. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 72, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1131, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). A state may waive the sovereign immunity defense, however, and consent to suit in federal court. Wisconsin Dep't of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389, 118 S.Ct. 2047, 2052, 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998). A state's voluntary appearance in federal court amounts to waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 284, 26 S.Ct. 252, 256, 50 L.Ed. 477 (1906); Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447, 2 S.Ct. 878, 888, 27 L.Ed. 780 (1883), and state consent to removal constitutes waiver of that immunity under certain circumstances. Lapides v. Board of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 1646, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002).

Plaintiff attempts to assert, on behalf of Mr. Pendergrass, an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense. The decision to invoke sovereign immunity belongs to the state, however,...