Taylor v. Chi. Transit Auth.

• Decision Date: 25 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 15 C 1479,15 C 1479
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: JOHN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

JOHN TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. 15 C 1479

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

August 25, 2015

Chief Judge Rubén Castillo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Taylor filed this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County against the Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA") alleging four claims: (1) gender discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"), 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-102; (2) failure to rehire due to gender discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) retaliatory discharge; and (4) retaliatory refusal to rehire or retain. (R. 1-1, Ex. A, Compl. at ¶¶ 25-57.) CTA removed this action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.¹ (R. 1, Notice of Removal.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. (R. 7, Pl.'s Mot. Remand.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, Illinois. (R. 1-1, Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 1.) CTA is an Illinois municipal corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffbegan working for CTA as a bus operator in September 2008. (Id. ¶ 3.) On January 6, 2009, Plaintiff was injured while working when a coworker drove over Plaintiff's right foot. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff was unable to work from January 26,2009, to May 5, 2009, because he needed medical treatment for his injury. (Id. ¶ 5.) In May 2009, Plaintiff returned to work but was unable to continue working as a bus operator due to recurring medical issues with his right foot. (Id. ¶ 6.) In October 2012, Plaintiff was notified that his temporary medical disability benefits were expired and that he would need to return to his duties as a bus driver by December 31, 2012 or else he would have to resign. (Id. ¶ 9.) On December 31, 2012, Plaintiff was discharged for a failure to return to work. (Id. ¶ 11.) Following his discharge, Plaintiff filed a grievance with his union and a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff was cleared for work, at which time he requested to be reinstated to his position as a bus driver. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that a CTA representative verbally asked him to drop his recent charge with the IDHR against CTA in order to be rehired to his previous position. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff dropped his IDHR claim, but CTA did not re-hire Plaintiff and denied that the conversation ever took place. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff was denied re-employment in writing by CTA. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff continued to apply to CTA, and was denied re-employment again in writing on January 20, 2014. (Id. ¶ 21.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff filed a substantially similar suit ("Taylor I") in this Court on June 30, 2014, alleging four claims: (1) retaliatory discharge under state common law; (2) retaliatory refusal to rehire or retain in violation of 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-102; (3) gender discrimination in violation of 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-102; and (4) gender discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (R. 8-1, Ex. 1, Taylor I Compl.) The underlying facts and claimsin support of Plaintiff's June 30, 2014 complaint filed in federal court are nearly identical to that of the present case. On August 8, 2014, this Court found that Plaintiff had failed to establish federal jurisdiction for his state law claims, and that no effort had been made to serve CTA. (R. 8-1, Ex. 2, Taylor I Min. Entry.) For those reasons, this Court dismissed the Taylor I complaint without prejudice to the filing of a proper amended complaint that would have established federal jurisdiction or to filing the complaint in state court. (Id.)

On January 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action in state court ("Taylor II"). (R. 1-1, Ex. A, Taylor II Compl.) In Count I, Plaintiff alleges gender discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-102. (Id. ¶¶ 25-32.) In Count II, he alleges a failure to rehire due to gender discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 33-40.) In Count III, he alleges retaliatory discharge in violation of Illinois law. (Id. ¶¶ 41-50.) In Count IV, he alleges a retaliatory refusal to rehire or retain in violation of Illinois law. (Id. ¶¶ 51-57.) On February 18, 2015, CTA removed the action from state court to federal court. (R. 1, Notice of Removal.) On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action to state court, (R. 7, Mot. to Remand), and supporting memorandum, (R. 8, Pl.'s Mem.). CTA responded to Plaintiff's motion on April 10, 2015. (R. 11, Def.'s Resp.) Plaintiff replied on April 17, 2015. (R. 13, Pl.'s Reply.)

LEGAL STANDARD

"[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A defendant may remove a case to federal court under Section 1441(c) whenever a claim conferring federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is joined with an otherwise non-removable claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)."The party seeking removal has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and federal courts should interpret the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubt in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum in state court." Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Remand is the appropriate course of action under the following circumstances: (1) the court "discovers that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the initial removal"; (2) the court "concludes that state law predominates in a removed claim that is separate and independent from the removed federal question claim"; or (3) the court "determines that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim." Adkins v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 326 F.3d 828, 847-48 (7th Cir. 2003). "In considering a motion for remand, the court must examine the plaintiff['s] complaint at the time of the defendant's removal and assume the truth of all factual allegations contained within the original complaint." Scouten v. MNL-FTS, L.L.C., 708 F. Supp. 2d 729, 731 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481, 487 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[W]hether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question answered by looking at the complaint as it existed at the time the petition for removal was filed." (citation omitted)).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that CTA improperly removed this suit to federal court, and asks that the Court remand this suit to state court. (R. 8, Pl.'s Mem. at 3.) Plaintiff sets forth a number of reasons for why he believes removal was improper. First, Plaintiff argues that the complaint does not contain a claim created by federal law or one that requires the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also argues that his Section 1983 claim is an insufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction because it is not "separate and independent"from his state law claims.² (Id. at 4.) Finally, Plaintiff argues that removal was improper because this Court previously dismissed the Taylor I complaint containing nearly identical claims for lack of jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.)

Three of the four counts in Plaintiff's complaint are indisputably state law claims. (See R. 1-1, Ex. A, Taylor II Compl.) However, Count II is styled as a discrimination claim for "Failure/Refusal to Rehire" in violation of Section 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 33-40.) Plaintiff first argues that despite bringing the claim under a federal statute, it is not a claim that arises under federal law and thus does not confer federal jurisdiction. (R. 8, Pl.'s Mem. at 5; R. 13, Pl.'s Reply at 1-2.) CTA counters that removal is proper because Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim confers the Court with proper jurisdiction. (R. 11, Def.'s Resp. at 3-4.)

In determining the propriety of removal under Section 1441(c), the Court must first decide whether there is a claim that confers federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331. Ne. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 707 F.3d 883, 890 (7th Cir. 2013). The existence of federal question jurisdiction is "governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 n.9 (1983) ("The well-pleadedcomplaint rule applies to the original jurisdiction of the district courts as well as to their removal jurisdiction."). A well-pleaded complaint presents a federal question where it "establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Franchise Tax, 463 U.S. at 27-28.

Here, CTA bases its belief that Count II confers federal question jurisdiction over this suit in part on its assumption that because Section 1983 is a federal statute, it must provide federal question jurisdiction. (R. 11, Def.'s Resp. at 3.) However, courts have held that Section 1983 is not a jurisdiction conferring statute. See Anderson v. Luther, 521 F. Supp. 91, 96 (N.D. Ill. 1981) ("[42 U.S.C. §] 1983 is not a jurisdictional statute; [rather] it is an enabling statute allowing individuals to sue state officers who, under color of state law, have deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights."); see also Polite v. Casella, 901 F. Supp. 90, 93 (N.D...