EAST ST. LOUIS - Walmart turned down an offer from former employees to limit damages on their discrimination claims to less than $75,000 each so they could litigate in St. Clair County.
Walmart preferred to litigate without limits in U.S. district court and District Judge David Dugan ruled in Walmart’s favor.
On Feb. 21, Dugan denied a motion to remand claims of Kimberly Long, Fern Scott and Dawn Triplett to St. Clair County.
He found no value in their affidavits swearing they would seek less than the $75,000 minimum for federal jurisdiction.
After establishing jurisdiction, he severed the suit into three separate suits.
Breanna Flowers of James Onder’s firm in St. Louis County filed the suit last March and served it on Walmart in April.
Chief Judge Andrew Gleeson assigned Circuit Judge Heinz Rudolf in May.
Walmart counsel Ashley Orler of Chicago removed the suit to district court, asserting diversity jurisdiction as an Arkansas citizen.
Orler claimed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because plaintiffs asserted six counts of discrimination and sought more than $50,000 on each count.
She moved to sever the claims in June, claiming they didn’t arise out of the same occurrence and didn’t involve common questions of law or fact.
“Further, it would be prejudicial to Walmart, inconvenient to witnesses, and inefficient for the Court to join these unrelated claims,” she wrote.
She claimed no two plaintiffs identified the same individuals as their alleged harassers.
“The fact that claims arise under the same law does not establish the existence of a common question,” she wrote.
Plaintiffs agreed with Walmart but a week later Walmart learned plaintiffs wanted a St. Clair County judge to perform the severance.
Wylie Blair of the Onder firm moved to remand and attached the affidavits stating damages wouldn’t exceed $75,000.
He claimed plaintiffs waived the right to obtain more damages, “to avoid satisfying the jurisdictional amount.”
Orler opposed remand, stating individuals who claim human rights have been awarded jury verdicts and settlements in excess of $75,000.
She cited precedent of Seventh Circuit appellate judges that litigants who want to prevent removal must file a binding stipulation or affidavit with their complaints.
She claimed affidavits filed after removal are irrelevant.
Dugan’s order addressed severance first.
He found plaintiffs alleged Walmart terminated them for different reasons at different times.
He found they alleged different kinds of adverse actions based on different protected classes.
He also found the claims involved different alleged harassers, decision makers and witnesses.
“Nonetheless, before severing these claims, the court must first confirm it has jurisdiction to do so,” he wrote.
Dugan found Walmart identified facts that supported an estimate of an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 for each plaintiff.
“The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly indicated removal jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal and is not affected by post removal events,” he wrote.
Dugan found the affidavits meaningless.