Plaintiff S. Mooney sued defendants Hussmann Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, raising claims of sex/gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court after defendants removed it to federal court.
Factual Overview:
Mooney was employed as a welder by defendants from August 2020 until July 2023. She alleges she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on her sex, pregnancy, and perceived disability. Specifically, Mooney claims she was subjected to unwarranted discipline, verbal abuse, dismissal of complaints and grievances, failure to train, demotion, and punishment for pumping breastmilk. She filed charges with the EEOC and Missouri Commission on Human Rights before filing suit in state court. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing some of Mooney’s claims were preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) because they required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Legal Analysis:
LMRA Preemption: The court rejected defendants’ argument that Mooney’s sex/gender discrimination claim (Count I) was preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. The court found that the claim did not substantially depend on analysis of the CBA, as it was a typical MHRA discrimination claim involving allegations of unwarranted discipline and denied grievances. The court noted that finding preemption based on generic CBA provisions regarding work standards and grievances would improperly expand § 301 preemption.
Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination Claims: The court also rejected defendants’ preemption arguments for Mooney’s pregnancy discrimination (Count II) and disability discrimination (Count VI) claims. The court found that the disparate treatment aspects of these claims were not preempted. Regarding failure-to-accommodate allegations, the court held that defendants failed to cite sufficiently specific CBA provisions that would require substantial interpretation.
Federal Question Jurisdiction: The court rejected defendants’ argument that Mooney’s pregnancy accommodation allegations necessarily raised a federal question. The court found that even if the MHRA did not require pregnancy accommodations, this would be a question for the state court to decide and did not create federal jurisdiction.
Attorney’s Fees: The court denied Mooney’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal even though it was ultimately unsuccessful.
The court granted Mooney’s motion to remand in part, denied her request for attorney’s fees, and remanded the case to state court.
Schrag on Law 