Jones v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Background

Devonna Jones sued her former employer, Greyhound Lines, Inc., and her former supervisor, Angela Murff, in San Francisco County Superior Court. Her claims arose under California law and included whistleblower retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally allows a federal court to hear a case involving citizens of different states when the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. Jones asked the court to remand, or return, the case to state court.

The parties agreed that Jones and Greyhound had diverse citizenship. They disagreed about Murff, whom the complaint identified as a California resident like Jones. The defendants argued that Murff was a sham defendant who had been fraudulently joined, meaning added improperly to prevent federal jurisdiction. They argued that Murff could not be held individually liable under section 1102.5.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that defendants have a particularly heavy burden to prove fraudulent joinder. The relevant question was not whether Jones’s claim against Murff would ultimately survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Instead, the question was whether there was any nontrivial possibility that a California state court would find that the complaint stated a claim against Murff.

Section 1102.5(b) provides that an employer, or a person acting on the employer’s behalf, may not retaliate against an employee for whistleblowing. The court noted that California’s highest court and appellate courts had not definitively decided whether the statute permits individual liability. Because the statute’s plain language could be read to allow such liability, the court found a possibility that Jones could state a claim against Murff.

The court also rejected the defendants’ reliance on cases involving a different California employment statute and cases predating the 2013 amendment to section 1102.5. The court said that federal district court decisions dismissing similar claims under Rule 12(b)(6) did not eliminate the possibility that a California state court could allow Jones’s claim against Murff.

Disposition

The case was ordered remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco under 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c). The court ordered each side to bear its own costs and fees connected with the removal and remand proceedings. The opinion does not rule on the ultimate merits of Jones’s employment claims.