Harden v. Securitas Security Services USA Inc.

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION Remanding the matter to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/7/2013. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERTA HARDEN,
Plaintiff,

v.
SECURITAS SECURITY
SERVICES USA, INC.,

Civ. Action No. 13-1200-RGA
Superior Court of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County
No. N13C-05-127

Defendant.

Roberta Harden, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro se Plaintiff.
Michele D. Allen, Esquire, Law Offices of Michele D. Allen, LLC, Hockessin, Delaware.
Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1,

August
2013
WilminJon, Delaware

~t~
On July 9, 2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal from the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County ("Superior Court"). (D.I. 1.) For
the reasons discussed below, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and will summarily remand the case to the Superior Court.
Plaintiff's Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and§ 1982, alleges
Defendant's employee made comments of a sexual nature to her on May 21, 2012.
Plaintiff complained via Defendant's hotline and web-site on the same day. Plaintiff
was terminated from her position on June 6, 2012, after she was advised there were no
available hours for her to work. She learned there were hours available at other sites
and that Defendant was hiring security officers for the same position from which she
had been terminated. Defendant removed the case to this Court on the basis of claims
alleged pursuant to§ 1981 and§ 1982.
In order for a case to be removable to the district court, the court must have
original jurisdiction by either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1332, 1441. "Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in
federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant." Kline v. Security
Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 252 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). If the case could not have been filed originally in federal court,
then removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 is improper and remand is appropriate. /d.
(citations omitted).

2

Defendant asserts that removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 by
reason of a federal question. Plaintiff proceeds prose and her complaint is liberally
construed. While Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, the statutes are
inapplicable to the fact as alleged. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race in the making of a private contract, and § 1982 prohibits racial discrimination in
transactions relating to real and personal property by securing the right of all citizens to
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. See 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. The complaint alleges sexual harassment, not race
discrimination. However, it has not invoked any statutes pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S. C.

§ 2000e et seq., and nothing indicates that it could, as there is no hint that Plaintiff filed
a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or that
she has received a right to sue notice. Liberally construing the complaint, at most, it
raises a state claim of retaliation.
Because the parties are not diverse and there is no federal question, this Court
does not have subject matter over the State action. This Court will summarily remand
the case to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1447(c).
An appropriate Order will issue.

2