KANSAS CITY – A federal court has remanded a discrimination case to the Jackson County Circuit Court.
Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled April 22 that the federal court lacked jurisdiction in plaintiff Robert Bernzen’s claims that AT&T Mobility Services LLC and Iesha Lynch discriminated against him based on his race and age.
“Defendants timely removed this case from state court, arguing that Lynch, also a Missouri citizen, was fraudulently joined,” according to the ruling.
Kays denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the case.
“Because plaintiff did not fraudulently join Lynch and the parties are not diverse, the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s motion,” the ruling states.
Bernzen, a white man older than 40, started working for AT&T in 2014, the ruling states. Lynch, a black woman, was his supervisor from 2015 until 2017 when she was promoted and relocated.
Bernzen alleged that Lynch treated him poorly because of his age and claimed that Lynch treated the other black employees better than him.
“For example, Lynch purportedly reserved easier and more lucrative sales for black employees, while assigning to plaintiff the difficult customers,” according to the ruling. “Plaintiff states that Lynch ignored his complaints about this behavior, which took an emotional toll and deprived him of career-advancement opportunities.”
Bernzen filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights against Lynch and AT&T in November 2017. The MCHR issued a right-to-sue letter and the plaintiff soon filed suit in state court against the defendants.
AT&T argued that the court should remove the case based on diversity jurisdiction.
“According to them, the court should disregard Lynch’s Missouri citizenship, dismiss the claims against her, and hear the case because she was fraudulently joined,” Kays wrote. “Plaintiff meanwhile asks the court to remand the suit based on his and Lynch’s shared state citizenship.”
The defendants stated that Bernzen's claims against Lynch were fraudulent because they did not accrue until he was issued his right-to-sue letter in May 2018 after the amendment was in effect. The plaintiff alleged his claims accrued earlier.
Kays stated that the plaintiff had a "potentially valid claim" against Lynch.
“Although the MHRA does not specify when a cause of action accrues, case law suggests that administrative right-to-sue letters do not bear on a discrimination claim’s validity," he wrote. "Rather, the failure to obtain such a letter is an affirmative defense that can be cured and waived,” according to the ruling.