Lovely v. Circle K

Background

Nicki Lashay Lovely, representing herself, sued Circle K Stores, Inc. and Joseph Farah in state court. The opinion describes Circle K as Lovely’s former employer and Farah as her former manager. Lovely alleged discrimination and retaliation based on her disability. The defendants moved the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss and require arbitration.

Jurisdiction and alleged improper joinder

The defendants argued that the federal court had diversity jurisdiction, which is federal authority to hear certain disputes involving parties with different citizenship. They acknowledged that Farah and Lovely had the same citizenship but argued that Farah had been fraudulently joined. Fraudulent joinder is a claim that a party was included in a case without a reasonable factual or legal basis in order to prevent federal jurisdiction.

The defendants argued that there was no reasonable basis for the claims against Farah because, they said, individual supervisors are not liable for discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court explained that the defendants had the burden of proving fraudulent joinder and that this burden was heavy.

Lovely’s complaint was only four sentences long and gave little detail about the alleged discrimination and retaliation. Based on the limited allegations, the court said Lovely appeared to be asserting a retaliation claim against Farah. But the court also said it was unclear whether a supervisor may be individually liable for retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court further observed that, given the complaint’s sparsity, it was difficult to determine the full scope of Lovely’s allegations and that a valid claim against Farah was plausible, particularly if the complaint were amended.

Ruling

The court concluded that the defendants had not met their burden of establishing fraudulent joinder. It remanded the action to the Hennepin County District Court. Judge Donovan W. Frank’s order did not decide whether Lovely’s claims against Farah were legally sufficient, whether the defendants were entitled to dismissal, or whether arbitration was required. The order expressly stated that the defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration was not reached in federal court.