Thomas v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc.

Background

Sarah Thomas filed a California state-court lawsuit against Security Industry Specialists, Inc., and former supervisors William Duncan and Jesse Antonio. The complaint asserted state-law employment claims, including gender discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, disability discrimination, violation of California Labor Code section 1102, failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process, and constructive discharge. Its sixth cause of action was titled “Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Disability Discrimination Under FEHA.”

Security Industry Specialists removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction, relying on the complaint’s express reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employer then moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Thomas moved to remand the case to state court. She argued that the complaint referred to the ADA only because California’s disability laws had adopted ADA standards. Alternatively, she asked for permission to amend the complaint to remove the ADA reference and then have the case remanded.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that removal was proper because the complaint expressly stated that the sixth cause of action was brought under the ADA, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 and following. The court rejected Thomas’s argument that the claim was based only on California law.

The court then considered whether Thomas could eliminate the federal claim and whether the court should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction—meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims—after the federal claim was gone. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the court found that Thomas could amend the complaint to eliminate the ADA references. For efficiency, however, the court dismissed the ADA claim instead of requiring a formal amended complaint.

The court concluded that the remaining state-law claims should be returned to state court. It emphasized that the federal claim had been eliminated at an early stage and that this provided a strong reason not to continue exercising jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also rejected the employer’s argument that Thomas had improperly manipulated the case to return it to state court, relying on Ninth Circuit authority recognizing a plaintiff’s ability to dismiss federal claims and seek remand after removal.

Disposition

The court struck all references to the ADA and dismissed the sixth cause of action for violating the ADA with prejudice. It granted Thomas’s motion to remand and ordered the matter remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.

Because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, it did not rule on Security Industry Specialists’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. That motion was terminated.