Polites v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand [# 20 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 06/03/2013. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY POLITES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV143 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Anthony Polites has brought suit against his employer, Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., alleging employment discrimination and retaliation on the basis of
disability in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. Home Depot removed
this case on diversity grounds. Polites does not dispute that there is complete
diversity between the parties, but argues that the amount in controversy does not
exceed $75,000 and therefore moves to remand. Because I find that a finder of fact
could legally conclude that damages exceed $75,000, I will deny the motion.
Background
Anthony Polites was hired by Home Depot in July 2007 as an Electrical
Trade Specialist to work at its location in Ferguson, Missouri. Polites worked in
this position full-time until March 8, 2012. Polites alleges that he has a substantial
physical impairment that was known to Home Depot, that he underwent a medical
procedure to ameliorate this condition, and that he took medical leave as a result of

the procedure. On March 8, 2010, Polites presented a medical release to Home
Depot indicating that he could return to work with certain restrictions. Home
Depot informed him that his position had been eliminated and he was being
reduced to part-time hours. Polites complained to his manager and human
resources that his job was eliminated because of his disability, that he was not
being accommodated, and that the reduction in hours was discriminatory.
Polites filed this action in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court, City of
St. Louis, Missouri, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of
the Missouri Human Rights Act. On January 23, 2013, Home Depot removed the
case to this court, arguing that the actual amount in controversy exceeds the
$75,000 threshold. Polites now moves to remand.
Discussion
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Myers v. Richland Cnty.,
429 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). A claim may be removed to federal court only if
it could have been brought in federal court originally; thus, the diversity and
amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 must be met, or the claim
must be based upon a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Peters v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 80 F.3d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1996). A defendant seeking
removal and opposing remand has the burden of establishing proper jurisdiction.
-2-

Bell v. Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009). Any doubts about the
propriety of removal are to be resolved in favor of remand. In re Bus. Men=s
Assurance Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993).
Jurisdiction under § 1332 requires a minimum amount in controversy in
excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties. Polites alleges that the amount in controversy
requirement has not been met and, thus, that federal jurisdiction is improper.
With regard to the amount in controversy requirement, the Eighth Circuit
has established that when “the complaint alleges no specific amount of damages or
an amount under the jurisdictional minimum, the removing party . . . must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.” In re Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Sales Practice Litig., 346 F.3d 830, 834
(8th Cir. 2003).
To meet this burden, the removing party must present “some specific facts or
evidence demonstrating that the jurisdictional amount has been met.” Hill v. Ford
Motor Co., 324 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1036 (E.D. Mo. 2004). In determining the
amount in controversy, the relevant question is not whether the verdict will
ultimately exceed $75,000; rather, it is whether a finder of fact could legally
conclude that the damages exceed that amount. Riffert v. Walgreen Co., No.

-3-

4:07CV1912 JCH, 2008 WL 495643, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2008) (citing Kopp
v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002)).
It is well established that, when calculating the amount in controversy,
punitive damages are to be included. Allison v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 980 F.2d
1213, 1215 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Soc'y, 320 U.S.
238, 240 (1943)). The court is given great discretion in decisions involving claims
for punitive damages and, hence, is required to closely scrutinize such claims.
Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
However, when punitive damages are included, the “existence of the
required amount must be supported by competent proof.” Id. at 388–89 (quoting
Esler v. Northrop Corp., 86 F.R.D. 20, 28 (W.D. Mo. 1979)). In the specific
context of a motion to remand, such proof may include evidence of similar cases in
which punitive damages were awarded. See Rodgers v. Wolfe, No. 4:05CV1600
ERW, 2006 WL 335716, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 14, 2006); Gonzalez–Lopez v.
Fahle, No. 4:05CV827 CEJ, 2005 WL 2708832 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2005).
According to his complaint, Polites is seeking “compensatory damages in an
amount less than $75,000,” plus damages for emotional distress, punitive damages,
and attorneys‟ fees. In his initial disclosures, Polites listed his compensatory
damages at $44,000. However, even assuming that Plaintiffs' actual damages are
-4-

less than $75,000, Polites‟ demand for punitive damages, damages for emotional
distress, and attorneys‟ fees would increase this amount. In a similar case, this
court recently held that although estimated compensatory damages were only
$35,000, the addition of damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and
attorneys‟ fees “would allow a finder of fact to „legally conclude‟ that the
jurisdictional minimum has been met.” White v. United Parcel Serv., No.
4:11CV707 AGF, 2012 WL 760936, at *3 (E.D. Mo. 2012). Furthermore, the
Eighth Circuit has approved a four-to-one ratio between punitive and
compensatory damages as appropriate in MHRA cases. Wallace v. DTG
Operations, Inc., 563 F.3d 357, 363 (8th Cir. 2009). Therefore, even if Polites‟
compensatory damages do not exceed $44,000 as noted in his initial disclosures, it
is clear that the finder of fact could potentially award well in excess of the $75,000
threshold.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s motion to remand [#20] is
denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of June, 2013..
-5-