Oiyemhonlan v. Aramark Management Services, Inc.

Background

Raymond Oiyemhonlan originally filed the action in San Francisco County Superior Court in March 2022. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated based on age and national origin. The opinion states that he alleged Matthew Bailey, identified as the Senior Director of Support Services, disliked him and tried to have him fired because he was from the African continent and spoke with an accent. Oiyemhonlan also alleged that he reported health and safety violations involving cleaning an operating room at a San Francisco medical center, and that Bailey used those complaints as an excuse to terminate him.

The original claims against Aramark included wrongful termination, breach of contract, retaliation, and disparate treatment. Aramark removed the case to federal court in May 2022, asserting diversity jurisdiction based on Oiyemhonlan's California citizenship and Aramark's asserted citizenship in Delaware and Pennsylvania.

Oiyemhonlan sought to add Don Hall, William Butler, and Matthew Bailey as defendants and to return the case to state court. The court had previously denied those requests without prejudice and invited Oiyemhonlan to amend if he could allege valid harassment claims consistent with counsel's obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Motion to Amend

Oiyemhonlan moved for leave to file an amended complaint adding harassment claims against Hall, Butler, and Bailey. He alleged that the individuals reminded him of his accent and made disparaging remarks. He also alleged that Bailey initiated the action against him and that the other proposed defendants did nothing to stop Bailey.

Aramark argued that amendment would be futile because the proposed allegations did not provide enough facts to show harassment that was sufficiently severe or widespread to change the conditions of employment under California law. Aramark also argued that Oiyemhonlan's purpose was to defeat diversity jurisdiction because the proposed defendants could have been added earlier.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. It considered the absence of prejudice to Aramark, the fact that the case was still in its early stages, and the absence of any prior amendments. The court found the record ambiguous about Oiyemhonlan's true motive.

The court acknowledged that the proposed amended complaint contained few details about the nature or duration of the remarks. It nevertheless rejected Aramark's argument that the allegations described only discrimination. The court explained that, under California law, harassment involves conduct outside the necessary performance of a supervisory job, and concluded that disparaging remarks about Oiyemhonlan's accent appeared to fit that definition. Whether the alleged conduct occurred and how strong the allegations were remained factual issues for later proceedings.

Ruling and Disposition

The court granted Oiyemhonlan's motion for leave to amend the complaint. The parties did not dispute that Hall, Butler, and Bailey were California residents. Because adding them would eliminate complete diversity of citizenship, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.

The court therefore remanded the case to San Francisco County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and directed the Clerk to close the federal case. The opinion did not decide whether Oiyemhonlan ultimately proved his harassment, wrongful-termination, contract, retaliation, or disparate-treatment claims.