CROFT v. GTT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Background

Aaron Croft sued GTT Communications, Inc. and his former supervisor, Eric Cohen, in state court, alleging employment discrimination related to his back condition, requests for workplace accommodations, and planned surgery. His claims included violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA; retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

GTT removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Croft and Cohen were both citizens of California. GTT argued that Cohen had been fraudulently joined, a legal term meaning that the plaintiff had no possible valid claim against the nondiverse defendant under settled state-law rules. If Cohen’s citizenship were disregarded, GTT argued, diversity jurisdiction existed. Croft moved to remand the case to state court.

Claims Against Cohen

The court concluded that Croft’s FEHA disability-harassment claim against Cohen was potentially valid. FEHA allows an individual employee to be personally liable for harassment, and the court considered Croft’s allegations that Cohen repeatedly called him “weak” because of his surgery and accommodation requests. The court did not consider Cohen’s declaration that he did not decide to terminate Croft because disputed facts must be resolved in Croft’s favor at this stage.

However, the court concluded that Croft’s FEHA retaliation claim against Cohen could not support individual liability. Under the California authority discussed by the court, supervisors cannot be held individually liable for retaliation under FEHA, even though the statute refers to retaliation by a “person.”

The court also examined whether Cohen’s alleged conduct could support a harassment claim. It explained that FEHA treats discrimination and harassment as distinct, but employment actions can sometimes provide evidence of a hostile message. Still, the court found that Croft had alleged only two relevant acts: Cohen’s repeated use of the word “weak” at the sales conference and Croft’s termination 10 days later. The court held that Croft had not alleged the widespread pattern needed for the harassment claim to be obviously viable under the applicable standard.

Amount in Controversy

The court also considered whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the threshold required for diversity jurisdiction in this case. GTT submitted evidence that Croft had earned a base salary of $102,000 per year, plus commissions. Croft argued that offsets and replacement employment could reduce his back-pay claim to approximately $51,000.

The court rejected that argument for purposes of removal because Croft had not submitted evidence showing when he obtained replacement employment. It also noted that Croft sought medical expenses, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The court concluded that these additional categories could push the amount in controversy above $75,000 and that GTT had met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling

The court denied Croft’s motion to remand. It held that Cohen was fraudulently joined, so his California citizenship could be disregarded; that complete diversity existed between Croft and GTT; and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The order disposed of Docket No. 15. The ruling addressed whether the case belonged in federal court, not the ultimate merits of Croft’s employment claims.