Tien aka Angela Tien v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

Yihsing “Angela” Tien worked for United as a flight attendant from approximately 2013 to January 2022. She alleged that she suffered serious injuries during a fall at a hotel while on a work trip in October 2018, took medical leave, and underwent surgery. She further alleged that United terminated her on January 25, 2022, despite a letter stating that her approved medical leave extended through January 25, 2023.

Tien alleged that Talia Espinoza called her on January 27, 2022, to give her notice of the termination. Tien claimed that Espinoza used a sarcastic tone, told her she should have known the limits of her leave, and ended the call rudely. Tien also alleged that United did not reinstate or rehire her after she complained.

Tien filed the case in San Mateo Superior Court on April 20, 2023. Her complaint asserted claims against Espinoza for harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. United removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and arguing that Espinoza had been fraudulently joined.

Fraudulent Joinder

For diversity jurisdiction, all plaintiffs and defendants generally must be citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. A non-diverse defendant does not defeat diversity jurisdiction if the plaintiff fraudulently joined that defendant. The removing defendant bears a heavy burden and must show either actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts or that the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant under state law.

The court concluded that United met that burden. It explained that Tien’s harassment and emotional-distress claims relied on the same underlying facts. Under California law, a harassment claim requires allegations that the plaintiff belongs to a protected group, was harassed because of that group, and experienced harassment severe enough to create a hostile work environment. An intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim requires extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause—or reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing—emotional distress, severe or extreme emotional distress, and actual and proximate causation.

The court stated that personnel-management decisions generally do not support harassment or intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It also found that Tien alleged only one communication from Espinoza and did not provide facts supporting her allegation that Espinoza’s conduct was severe and pervasive. The court characterized that allegation as a legal conclusion presented as a fact. It therefore concluded that Espinoza was fraudulently joined and dismissed the claims against her, with prejudice. The court stated that this created complete diversity between the remaining parties.

Amount in Controversy

The court also considered whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Tien sought general and special damages, medical expenses, lost earnings, and attorney’s fees. United relied in part on Tien’s reportable wages of approximately $72,000 in 2018 and $80,000 in 2017, as well as estimates for other damages and fees. Tien also requested more than $8,000 in attorney’s fees for the remand motion, and her counsel stated that his hourly rate was $450.

The court concluded that United had shown by a preponderance of the evidence—that it was more likely than not—that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Disposition

The court vacated the hearing and DENIED Tien’s motion to remand. It also DENIED Espinoza’s motion to dismiss as moot and vacated that hearing. The order states that United’s motion to dismiss and the case-management conference were pending further order of the court.