Miley v. Hous. Auth. of Bridgeport
| Decision Date | 25 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:12cv519(VLB). |
| Citation | 926 F.Supp.2d 420 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Rondell MILEY, Plaintiff, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF, BRIDGEPORT and Nicholas Calace, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John T. Bochanis, Daly, Weihing & Bochanis, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff.
Lisa Grasso Egan, Rachel Volkman Kushel, Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese–Costa PC, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendant.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's, Rondell Miley (“Miley”), motion to remand this action to Connecticut Superior Court, asserting that his claim under the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act is non-removable. Also before the Court is the motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, by the Defendants, the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport (the “Housing Authority”) and its Executive Director, Nicholas Calace (“Calace”). The amended complaint advances a state statutory claim for retaliation under the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–290 and three federal law claims, two under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violation of procedural due process by virtue of the manner in which his employment was terminated by and one stigma-plus due process claim. For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to remand and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court severs the Plaintiff's Workers' Compensation Act claim and remands that claim back to Connecticut Superior Court.
The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges the following facts. In October 2006, Miley commenced employment with the Housing Authority as a maintenance aide. [Dkt. # 20, Amended Complaint, ¶ 1]. Miley alleges that on September 20, 2011, he was injured in the course of his employment. Id. at ¶ 3. Miley sought workers' compensation benefits. Id. at ¶ 4. Miley alleges that the Defendants discriminated against him for exercising his rights under the Workers' Compensation Act when they discharged him on March 5, 2012. Id. at ¶ 5.
Miley alleges that the Housing Authority and Nicholas Calace conducted an investigation into his compensation claim on February 23, 2012. Id. at Count II, ¶ 4. Miley contends that Defendants accused him of having falsified Housing Authority records, defrauding the workers' compensation benefit program and violating the public trust. Id. at Count II, ¶ 5. Miley alleges that Defendants' accusations interfered with his employment reputation “in such a manner to interfere with his continued ability to seek and obtain employment.” Id. at Count II, ¶ 6. Miley further alleges that the “Defendants' accusations against the Plaintiff resulted in his wrongful discharge of employment” and “impinged his good name, reputation, honor and integrity and denigrated the Plaintiff's competence in his employment field.” Id. at Count II, ¶ 7. Miley asserts that Defendants knew that his “treating physician indicated that the Plaintiff sustained a work related injury” and nonetheless “accused him of fraud, dishonesty and violation of public trust.” Id. at Count II, ¶ 7.
Miley further alleges that the “accusation of intentional misconduct published by the Defendants concerning the Plaintiff's occupation resulted in his wrongful discharge of his employment, stigmatized and effected the competency of the Plaintiff, and will preclude him from obtaining other job opportunities in his employment field.” Id. at Count II, ¶ 8. Miley further alleges that the Defendants' action in “accusing the Plaintiff of fraud ... was irrational and wholly arbitrary without any proper basis” and ignored or failed to consider that Miley was treated for a work related injury by his physician who confirmed it was work related. Id. at Count II, ¶ 10.
Miley also alleges that he was denied a full and fair pre-termination hearing in violation of due process. Id. at Count III, ¶ 9. In particular, Miley contends that the Defendants failed to provide him with all the evidence they allegedly had pertaining to the basis of his termination and as a result he did not have an adequate opportunity to respond to the charges against him. Id. Miley claims that the “Defendants during the course of their investigation against [him] concerning his claim for workers' compensation benefits ... obtained and/or were aware of statements from co-workers of the Plaintiff and had in their possession an investigation conducted by the Defendants' workers compensation administrator Chartis, but failed to provide such evidence to the Plaintiff, thereby precluding the Plaintiff from having a reasonable opportunity to respond.” Id. at Count III, ¶ 10.
Miley argues that the entire action must be remanded because 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) provides that “[a] civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Defendants argue that remand is not appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) because Miley has also asserted federal claims over which this Court has original federal question jurisdiction. Defendants point out that “Connecticut [federal] courts routinely exercise jurisdiction over Connecticut workers' compensation claims when such claims are brought with federal claims over which the court has original question jurisdiction.” In support of this proposition the defense cites to six District of Connecticut cases in support. [Dkt. # 14, Def. Mem., p. 14–15].
Defendants' arguments are unavailing. All of the cases cited by the Defendant are distinguishable as all involve cases which were filed by the plaintiffs in and were not removed to federal court. This distinction is critical as it implicates the subtle distinction between removal jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction as well as the fact that Section 1445(c) operates as a “choice of forum privilege” for plaintiffs and not for defendants. SeeWilson v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc., 401 F.Supp.2d 186, 193–94 (D.Conn.2005). To elaborate, federal courts can consider workers' compensation claims pursuant to their authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where a plaintiff files his complaint directly in federal court. As noted above, this is illustrated by the six cases Defendants cite in their memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to remand, as the plaintiffs in all six cases cited had filed suit directly in federal court. Thus the court's removal jurisdiction was never implicated. See Santiago v. Butler Co., 3:08–cv–1297; Hubbard v. Total Communications, 3:05–cv–1514; Hill v. Pfizer, 3:01–cv–1546; Lajeunesse v. Great Altantic & Pacific Tea Co., 3:99–cv–1630; Dupee v. Klaff's, Inc., 3:05–cv–344; Venterina v. Cummings & Lockwood, 3:98–cv–849. Section 1445(c) pertains only to removing workers' compensation claims from state to federal court and thus it is not triggered where a plaintiff files suit directly in federal court. Had Miley chosen to file his complaint directly in federal court, this Court could have considered his workers' compensation claim pursuant to this Court's authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. However because Miley choose to file in state court, § 1445(c)'s bar on removal of workers' compensation claims has been triggered.
The parties do not appear to dispute that Miley's retaliatory discharge claim under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31–290 arises under the workers' compensation laws of Connecticut for purposes of § 1445(c). In a matter of first impression, another court in this district persuasively held that such a claim does arise under such laws. Wilson, 401 F.Supp.2d at 190–91. The Wilson court explained that “the application of § 1445(c) to Connecticut state law is a question of federal law” and noted that courts have interpreted the phrase “arising under” in § 1445(c) as having “the same meaning as the identical phrase in the closely related federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at 190 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Wilson court observed that “[a]pplying this test, courts have reached differing conclusions on the issue of removability, depending primarily on whether the plaintiff's cause of action for retaliatory discharge was created by statute or case law.” Id. (collecting cases). Based on these cases, the Wilson court reasoned that a retaliatory discharge claim under § 31–290 arises under Connecticut workers' compensation laws for purposes of § 1445(c) because such a claim is “explicitly created by § 31–290(a)” and an integral part of Connecticut's scheme for compensating employees for work-related injuries. Id. at 191. This Court agrees with the Wilson court's analysis that a retaliatory discharge claim under § 31–290 arises under the workers' compensation laws of Connecticut for purposes of § 1445(c).
The Defendants contend that the prohibition on removal in § 1445(c) applies only to cases which were removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and should not extend to cases which were removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The Wilson court only addressed whether § 1445(c) permitted removal of an entire action where there was diversity of citizenship and did not consider whether it also prevented removal of an action where a workers' compensation claim was joined with related federal claims. In addressing the question with respect to diversity jurisdiction,the Wilson court examined 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which “confers a...
To continue reading
Request your trial