Summary
declaring thatO'Loughlin "construed the Florida Civil Rights Act to provide the same protection to pregnant women as would its Federal counterpart"
Summary of this case from Boone v. Total Renal Laboratories, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 04-81198-CIV-DIMITROULEAS.
February 9, 2005
FINAL ORDER OF REMAND, FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S FEES
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's January 12, 2005 Motion to Remand [DE-5], and the Court having considered Defendant's January 18, 2005 Response [DE-6], and no reply having been filed, finds as follows:
1. In November, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging a deprivation of her civil rights pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act. The Complaint alleges gender discrimination (Defendant views it as pregnancy discrimination) and retaliation.
2. On December 30, 2004, Defendant removed this case to federal court citing a Florida appellate decision that pregnancy discrimination is preempted by Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. However, in that pleading, Defendant agreed to pay all costs and disbursements if it were later determined that the case was improperly removed. [DE-1].
3. O'Laughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) construed the Florida Civil Rights Act to provide the same protection to pregnant women as would its Federal counterpart. It did not hold that pregnancy discrimination was completely preempted by federal law or that such a claim could only be filed in federal court. Indeed, Pinchback was awarded back pay in that state case. Id. at 796.
4. Neither is the Court persuaded by Judge Schlesinger's opinion in Frazier v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 03-CV-764 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2003). In that case, Judge Schlesinger decided a motion to dismiss. Federal jurisdiction was never an issue because Frazier's suit was based on federal law (Count One charged a violation of Title VII).
Just as the state court judge may do on remand, here.
5. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of removed cases where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear.Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095. When a case is removed from state court, the removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
6. A plaintiff is the master of her own complaint, and she is free to avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading only state claims, even though a federal claim is also available. Hill v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir.), reh'g denied, 107 Fed. Appx. 895 (11th Cir. 2004).
7. Ordinary preemption, which is less than complete preemption, may be raised as a defense to a state law claim, but it does not provide the basis for removal to federal court. Dunlop v. GL Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 1290 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has identified only three statutes that completely preempt related state law claims: Labor Management Relations Act, ERISA, and the National Bank Act. Id. at 1291. Without Plaintiff's claim raising a substantial federal question, this Court does not have jurisdiction.
8. Defendant has not questioned the reasonableness of Plaintiff's request for $900 in attorney's fees. This Court need not find that the state court action was removed in bad faith in order to award attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 393 F.3d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 2004). Conversely, an improper removal does not equate to automatic fees. Id. at 1147; Valdes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, the Court will exercise discretion and award the requested fees, finding the request to be reasonable and appropriate.
Wherefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Remand [DE-5-1] is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees [DE-5-2] is GRANTED in the amount of $900;
3. The Clerk is directed to return this case to the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida;
4. All pending motions in this case are DENIED AS MOOT;
5. The Clerk shall close this case.