Federal Court Says Retaliatory Discharge Action May Not Be Removed

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recently held that that the removal of plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge action that had been filed in state court was improper under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1445(c) [Prince v. Professional Transp., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203341 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 22, 2019)]. In its holding, the district court found that a cause of action for retaliatory discharge in violation of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”) is “integrally related to [the Act] and … protects and enhances the ability of workers to obtain compensation benefits” [quoting Hamilton v. Peachtree Ridge Mining Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91836 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 18, 2006)].

Background

Prince was a driver for the Defendant Professional Transportation, Inc., a company that provides transportation to and from medical appointments for Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. On November 5, 2018, Prince was involved in an automobile accident while transporting patients as part of his job duties. As a result of this accident, Prince requested workers’ compensation and sought approval for temporary total disability and medical treatment benefits. On November 20, 2019, while Prince was seeking those benefits, Defendant terminated his employment.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, alleging violations of the Act’s Discriminatory Practices statute and violations of the West Virginia’s Wage Payment Collection Act. Defendant removed the case to the federal district court, asserting that the sole basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332. Plaintiff filed his motion to remand.

Removal of Intentional Tort Cases

According to the district court, Defendant contended that the instant case was somewhat akin to a Mandolidis-type action [see Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., 161 W. Va. 695, 246 S.E.2d 907 (W. Va. 1978), in which the West Virginia high court expanded the definition of deliberate intention in this context. The district court acknowledged that in Arthur v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 58 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 1995), the Fourth Circuit held that a “deliberate intent” claim did not arise out of the state’s workers’ compensation laws because it was not integrally related to the workers’ compensation system and did not protect or enhance the ability of workers to obtain compensation benefits.

The district court added, however, that in Arthur, the Fourth Circuit declined to rule explicitly as to whether a statutory retaliation discharge claim arising under the Act was barred from removal under 28 U.S.C.S § 1445(c). The Fourth Circuit did observe, however, in dicta, “the sharp distinction between a retaliatory discharge claim and the Mandolidis claim ….” The Arthur Court said that an action for retaliatory discharge is integrally related to the just and smooth operation of the workers’ compensation system; it insures that those seeking compensation benefits are not scared out of making claims. By contrast, stressed the Fourth Circuit in Arthur, the Mandolidis claim has no relationship to providing no-fault benefits and plays no role in promoting the just and smooth operation of the workers’ compensation system.

This Was No Mandolidis Claim; Removal Improper

The district court continued that here, Plaintiff had alleged Defendant engaged in retaliatory discharge because he was fired shortly after applying for workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiff was not invoking a Mandolidis claim; it was undisputed that the instant case was a retaliatory discharge action. Accordingly, the removal of the action was improper.