Bowen v. TSI Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER granting without prejudice 6 Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs North Carolina wrongful discharge claim. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/25/17. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-00525-FDW-DCK
LISA A. BOWEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TSI HEALTHCARE, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6). In its timely Response to Motion (Doc. No. 9),
Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claim for wrongful
discharge under North Carolina public policy. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim without prejudice.
This action arises from an employment dispute between Plaintiff, Lisa Bowen, and
Defendant, TSI Healthcare, Inc. Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court, asserting federal question
jurisdiction, on August 31, 2017. Her complaint alleged: (1) violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”); (2) violations of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”); and (3)
wrongful discharge in violation of North Carolina public policy. (Doc. No. 1, p. 1). Defendant
answered and filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 26, 2017, arguing that there is no
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim for wrongful discharge. (Doc. No. 7, p.
1).

1

Case 3:17-cv-00525-FDW-DCK Document 10 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 2

Supplemental jurisdiction is granted and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This statute allows
federal district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to the
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the “same case or
controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Such is the case when claims “derive from a common nucleus
of operative fact.” United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s wage and hour act claims pertain to completely
different facts than the wrongful discharge claim. (Doc. No. 7, p. 5). Defendant asserts that the
wage and hour act claims concern whether Plaintiff’s position as a computer support specialist was
“exempt” under the wage and hour statutes, while the wrongful termination claim relates to
whether Plaintiff was terminated from her position as auditor because of a medical condition. Id.
at 4-5. Defendant argues, therefore, that the wrongful discharge claim does not share a common
nucleus of operative fact with the wage and hour act claims. Id. Consequently, there is no
supplemental jurisdiction in this Court for Plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim. Plaintiff does not
oppose dismissal of her North Carolina wrongful discharge claim. (Doc. No. 9, p. 2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s North Carolina wrongful discharge claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 25, 2017

2

Case 3:17-cv-00525-FDW-DCK Document 10 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 2