Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case before the court, the plaintiff filed an age discrimination claim against her former employer under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, after being replaced by a younger, less experienced employee. Following procedural developments and a reversal of dismissal to a finding of probable cause by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), the defendant sought to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that the MCAD is not a state court from which removal is permissible. The court applied the functional test from Volkswagen de P.R. Inc. v. P.R. Labor Relat. Bd. and concluded that the MCAD, with its quasi-judicial powers and administrative functions, does not qualify as a state court for federal removal purposes. The court further determined that the federal interest in the case was insufficient to warrant removal, as the claim was purely under state law. Consequently, the court ordered the remand of the case to the MCAD and denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of established precedent on the issue and finding the removal attempt non-frivolous.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney's Fees for Improper Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denies the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), finding that the removal was not frivolous given the lack of clear precedent on the application of the Volkswagen test to the MCAD.
Reasoning: Given the uncertainty regarding the application of the Volkswagen test to the MCAD and the absence of established law on removal from the MCAD, the court concludes that the defendant's removal was neither frivolous nor vexatious and denies the request for attorney's fees.
Federal Interest in State Agency Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds that the federal interest in a state discrimination claim adjudicated by the MCAD is insufficient to justify removal to federal court, as the claim is solely under state law.
Reasoning: While removal may be justified if federal law directly applies, a claim pending before the MCAD under state law does not inherently create sufficient federal interest, particularly when no federal law will ultimately govern the claim.
Functional Test for Agency as Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court uses the functional test from Volkswagen de P.R. Inc. v. P.R. Labor Relat. Bd., assessing the MCAD’s powers, procedures, and jurisdiction, to determine that the MCAD does not qualify as a state court for federal removal purposes.
Reasoning: The court evaluates the motion for remand using the functional test established in Volkswagen de P.R. Inc. v. P.R. Labor Relat. Bd., which assesses: (1) the agency's powers and procedures, (2) the locus of jurisdiction, and (3) the interests involved.
Removal Jurisdiction and State Agenciessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluates whether the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is considered a state court for the purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, concluding that the MCAD is not equivalent to a state court.
Reasoning: This limitation on enforcement, coupled with the agency's substantial non-judicial functions—such as its investigatory and prosecutorial roles—favors a conclusion that the MCAD is not equivalent to a state court.