Jong-Yul Lim v. Intern. Inst. of Metro. Detroit
Decision Date | 17 March 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 80-72840. |
Parties | JONG-YUL LIM, Plaintiff, v. The INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Sheldon J. Stark, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Albert D. Miller and Gerald K. Flagg, Southfield, Mich., for defendant.
This action is before the court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The plaintiff set forth two additional state claims in the complaint and asserts that the federal court has jurisdiction over these non-federal claims under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
Whether this court has pendent jurisdiction with respect to any or all of the plaintiff's state law claims is an issue which has been briefed and argued, although raised by the Court on its own motion.
The plaintiff's complaint filed July 31, 1980, contains the following allegations.
The plaintiff is a male, United States citizen of Korean birth and origin. The plaintiff is an employee of the defendant corporation in Michigan. The defendant failed to promote the plaintiff to an available position for which he had applied and for which he was well qualified. Instead, the defendant promoted a less qualified woman to the position. The place of birth and national origin of the woman receiving the promotion are not alleged. The plaintiff filed a timely charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a right-to-sue letter dated May 31, 1980.
The plaintiff also alleges that the position for which he sought promotion was not posted on the staff bulletin board as required by the "Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual" of the defendant, and that efforts by the plaintiff to grieve through the grievance mechanism of the manual were futile in that the plaintiff was not afforded a hearing and was never officially informed of the reasons for his rejection.
The plaintiff's complaint sets forth the following claims for relief:
By way of "legal relief" the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees. By way of "equitable relief" he seeks an injunction against further acts of sexual or national origin discrimination, a court-ordered promotion, back pay, pension and fringe benefits, attorney fees, interest, and costs. The "legal relief" sought is, of course, available, if at all, only under the plaintiff's Michigan law claims. He is entitled to a jury trial under Michigan law and has demanded a jury trial of all legal issues.
The Court has been caused to examine the scope of jurisdiction of state law claims pendent to the Title VII claim, on its own motion, because of the devastating effect of pendent state law claims on the Court's ability to carry out its statutory duty "to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5). The Court has been encouraged to do so by a statement in Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright, Miller and Cooper, Cumulative Supplement to Volume 13, Section 3567 at 352, which reads:
"Although only pendent claims, and not pendent parties, were involved, Aldinger has been read to mean that where Congress has significantly limited the power of the federal courts as to the amount of recovery for which a defendant can be liable, the court lacks power to hear a pendent state claim that would increase the recovery to beyond that limit."
Citing Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc., 444 F.Supp. 117 (D.C.N.Y.1978). See Comment, Aldinger v. Howard and Pendent Jurisdiction, 77 Colum.L.Rev. 127 (1977).
However unclear Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), may be with respect to statutory limitation on pendent jurisdiction, the following statement from the majority opinion in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978), clarifies the issue:
Id. at 371-73, 98 S.Ct. 2396, at 2401-02, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
Although first noted in the context of pendent party jurisdiction, the necessity of examining the statute giving rise to the federal claim to ascertain the limitation, if any, on the power of a federal court to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim has been recognized in cases involving ordinary pendent jurisdiction. Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp., 85 F.R.D. 568, 595-96 (N.D.N.Y.1979); Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc., 444 F.Supp. 117, 120 (E.D.N.Y.1978). See Comment, supra at 147-52.
In Aldinger, supra, the Court found that the statutory exclusion of a claim against a municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was indicative of congressional intent to preclude pendent federal jurisdiction over state claims brought against such an entity. 427 U.S. at 17, 96 S.Ct. at 2421. The exclusion of a claim is but one of the ways in which congressional intent to negate the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-federal claim can be manifested.
A specific congressional limitation on the amount of recovery or on the nature of relief available under the federal statute can be equally as probative of congressional intent....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Air Crash Disaster at Gander, Newfoundland
...forbid or preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over state claims by a court hearing a Warsaw claim. Cf. Jong-Yul v. Intern. Inst. of Metro. Detroit, 510 F.Supp. 722 (E.D.Mich. 1981). Indeed, the Convention's nonexclusive scheme practically insures that courts will be routinely faced with b......
-
Cuello-Suarez v. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGIA ELECTRICIA
...(D.So.Car.1983), Bennett v. Southern Marine Management Co., 531 F.Supp. 115 (M.D.Fla.1982), Jong-Yul Lim v. International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 722 (E.D.Mich.1981), Kiss v. Tamarac Utilities, Inc., 463 F.Supp. 951 (S.D.Fla.1978), Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas......
-
Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Com'n
...the federal remedy will be a complete one, we need not reach the state law questions. See Jong-Yul Lim v. International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 722, 725 (E.D. Mich.1981) ("The limited grant of relief under Title VII is an indication of congressional intent to ne......
-
Thibodeau v. Foremost Ins. Co.
...abusive discharge are brought under Michigan law and involve unresolved questions of state law. Jong-Yul Lim v. International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 722, 726 E.D.Mich.1981; cf. Schipani v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Mich.App. 606, 302 N.W.2d 307 1981; Hrab v. Hayes-Al......