Ngo v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Loi Ngo brought state-law claims against his former employer, United Airlines, Inc., and former supervisors Mohammed Buksh and Yvonne Pierce. The claims included disability- and medical-condition-based discrimination and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, wrongful termination, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, negligent supervision and training, and alleged California Labor Code violations.

Ngo filed the case in the California Superior Court for Alameda County. The defendants removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Ngo and supervisors Buksh and Pierce were all identified as California citizens. The defendants argued that the supervisors had been fraudulently joined, meaning that Ngo could not possibly establish a state-law claim against them and their presence should therefore be disregarded when deciding whether the parties were diverse.

Ngo alleged that Buksh and Pierce subjected him to hostile treatment related to his physical restrictions, disabilities, medical conditions, and alleged race, ethnicity, or national origin. Among other allegations, he claimed that they failed to honor work restrictions, refused scheduling accommodations, interfered with physical therapy, questioned or sought medical information, rejected his attempts to return to work, threatened discipline, and arranged for police to conduct a welfare check at his home while he was on medical leave. He also alleged that Pierce referred to his son using an offensive term.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that fraudulent joinder requires a defendant to show, by clear and convincing evidence, either actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts or that the plaintiff cannot establish any cause of action against the nondiverse defendant in state court. If there is a possibility that a state court would find that the complaint states a claim against a resident defendant, the federal court must treat the joinder as proper and remand the case. The court also considered whether the complaint’s deficiencies could possibly be cured by amendment.

The court concluded that Ngo’s FEHA harassment claims against Buksh and Pierce were not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Although many alleged actions were supervisory or personnel-management decisions, the court stated that such actions may contribute to a harassing message when combined with other conduct. It also considered the alleged pattern of treating Ngo less favorably than other employees based on disability or medical condition, along with the alleged welfare check and offensive statement about Ngo’s son.

Because there was a possibility that a California state court would find that Ngo stated a FEHA harassment claim against both supervisors, the court held that neither supervisor was fraudulently joined. The court therefore did not need to address Ngo’s emotional-distress claims against the supervisors. The ruling concerned whether the case belonged in federal court; it did not decide whether Ngo would ultimately prevail on his employment claims.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Ngo’s motion to remand and ordered that the case be REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. It vacated the November 22, 2019 motion hearing and the initial case-management conference. Ngo had not requested attorney fees as part of the motion, so the court did not award fees. Judge Joseph C. Spero stated that the order did not award fees incurred in the removal and was not appealable.