The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPORKIN
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion to remand and defendants' motion to dismiss. Because the Court will grant plaintiff's motion to remand this case to Superior Court, the Court need not address defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendant, Bell Atlantic Corporation, Inc., hired plaintiff, Meshelle Van Allen, in December 1991. Plaintiff was a member of Local 2336 of the Washington Telephone Company Union (hereinafter "employees' union"). At all times relevant to this case, the employees' union maintained a collective-bargaining agreement with Bell Atlantic.
Plaintiff alleges that in June 1994 -- after a co-worker overheard Van Allen comment on rumors that an assistant manager had been charged with sexual harassment -- the assistant manager and several other employees engaged in a harassment campaign against plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that due to the campaign against her she received at least six retaliatory suspensions; that defendants harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against her; that defendants created a hostile environment, including but not limited to, monitoring plaintiff's telephone calls; and that she was denied a promotion for which she had applied.
Van Allen alleges defendants retaliated against her in violation of the District of Columbia Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") by discharging her while she was absent on sick leave in August 1995. Plaintiff claims Bell Atlantic did not notice her regarding her termination, her removal from Bell Atlantic payroll, or the cancellation of her benefits. Due to these, and other allegations set forth in her complaint, plaintiff claims she was subjected to severe stress, anxiety, emotional suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and experienced serious physical symptoms.
Plaintiff filed suit on December 1, 1995, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff's complaint stated four counts against the defendants: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) intentional and malicious interference with plaintiff's contractual relationship; (3) tortious interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage; and (4) violation of the District of Columbia's FMLA.
Defendants removed the case to this Court on the ground that all the claims arise under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Specifically, defendants argue that the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over this action, since the plaintiff's complaint raises a federal question, i.e. issues of federal labor law under § 301.
Plaintiff opposes removal of this action and has filed a motion to remand.
A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue. 107 S. Ct. at 2430, citing Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 12, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420, 103 S. Ct. 2841 (1983).
The issue here is whether plaintiff's state law claims are superseded by a federal question. If not, then the case should be remanded to the state court. See Caterpillar, 107 S. Ct. at 2431. Defendants state that they plan to raise provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement as a defense to plantiff's complaint, ...