Garrett v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Background

Ernest Garrett sued his former employer, Boston Scientific Corporation, in Minnesota state court. He alleged race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Boston Scientific removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Garrett then filed an amended complaint adding Selsa Castillo, identified as a Boston Scientific Senior Employee Relations Representative, as an individual defendant. Garrett asserted an MHRA reprisal claim against Castillo.

Garrett alleged that he reported discriminatory conduct to Castillo. He also alleged that, after a dispute at a daycare facility on Boston Scientific’s campus, Castillo informed him that he was being placed on unpaid leave while the company investigated allegations against him. Boston Scientific terminated Garrett’s employment on October 27, 2021. The opinion states that Garrett did not allege Castillo engaged in the discriminatory conduct, was his supervisor, or made the decision to place him on leave or terminate him.

Motion to Remand

Garrett moved to remand, or return, the case to state court, arguing that complete diversity no longer existed after Castillo was added. Castillo argued that she had been fraudulently joined to defeat federal jurisdiction. Fraudulent joinder permits a federal court to retain a removed case when there is no reasonable factual or legal basis for a claim against a nondiverse defendant.

The court held that the amended complaint did not provide a reasonable basis for predicting that Castillo could be liable under the MHRA. The statute requires that an individual defendant have participated in the alleged discrimination before being liable for reprisal. The court found no allegation that Castillo participated in the discrimination Garrett described. The court also held that the complaint did not reasonably allege that Castillo took an adverse employment action against Garrett. In particular, communicating the decision to place Garrett on leave did not establish that Castillo made that decision.

Because the court found Castillo fraudulently joined, it denied Garrett’s motion to remand and retained jurisdiction over the case.

Motion to Dismiss

Castillo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that this standard requires factual allegations making relief plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative.

The court concluded that because the complaint did not state even a colorable reprisal claim against Castillo under the less demanding fraudulent-joinder standard, it also failed to satisfy the more demanding plausibility standard. The court therefore granted Castillo’s motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court denied Garrett’s Motion to Remand, granted Castillo’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed Castillo as a defendant. The order did not state that Boston Scientific was dismissed.