Major v. Diageo North America, Inc.

Background

Eboni Major filed suit against Diageo North America, Inc. in New York Supreme Court. She alleged race discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint alleged that she was treated worse than white women in compensation and expectations, that her work was credited to white employees, that she was denied similar recognition, and that the conduct created a hostile work environment and led to her constructive termination. She sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Diageo removed the action to the Southern District of New York under the federal diversity-jurisdiction statutes. Diversity jurisdiction generally permits a federal court to hear a case involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The complaint identified Major as a resident of Alabama and Diageo as a foreign business corporation with its North American headquarters in New York, New York. Diageo asserted that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

Motion to Remand

Major moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. She argued that Diageo’s notice of removal did not adequately prove that more than $75,000 was in dispute, particularly because the complaint did not state a specific damages amount and because there was a $50,000 difference between the federal threshold and the relevant lower-state-court jurisdictional limit.

The court explained that, when the complaint does not specify the amount in controversy, a removal notice initially needs only a plausible allegation that the amount exceeds the federal threshold. If the plaintiff contests that allegation, the defendant must then establish the amount by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that the amount exceeds $75,000.

Court’s Analysis

The court found Diageo’s removal notice plausible. Although the reference to the state-court jurisdictional limit alone would not establish the amount in controversy, Diageo also relied on Major’s demand for compensatory and punitive damages and the allegations in her complaint. Those allegations included her senior blending role, creation of an award-winning whiskey blend, participation in a marketing campaign that allegedly generated more than $1 million in revenue, alleged undercompensation over at least four years, a hostile work environment, hypertension, constructive termination, and substantial emotional and physical harms. The court concluded that, if Major succeeded on those allegations, it was clearly plausible that the damages would exceed $75,000.

The court also held that Diageo met the higher evidentiary burden after Major challenged removal. Diageo submitted a lawyer’s declaration stating that Major had made multiple settlement demands of at least seven figures from August 2020 through January 2022. Diageo also submitted a report stating that Major had previously rejected a $300,000 offer to leave Diageo, along with evidence that she refused to stipulate that she was seeking no more than $75,000. Major did not refute that evidence or offer contrary evidence.

Ruling

Judge Liman denied Major’s motion to remand. The court concluded that Diageo had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the claim exceeded the federal diversity-jurisdiction amount. The order did not decide the merits of Major’s discrimination, disparate-treatment, or retaliation claims. The Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.