{"id":343,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=343"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"reyes-fedex-cd-cal-remands-discrimination-fraudulent-joinder-iied","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=343","title":{"rendered":"Reyes v. Federal Express Corp. \u2014 C.D. Cal. Remands Discrimination Suit, Rejects Worker’s Comp Preemption Theory of Fraudulent Joinder"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Reyes v. Federal Express Corp.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-02248<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal jurisdiction; fraudulent joinder; intentional infliction of emotional distress; California Workers’ Compensation Act preemption; supervisor liability<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Susana Reyes sued FedEx and her supervisor Brian Baiza in San Bernardino County Superior Court for disability and age discrimination, retaliation, and related state-law claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Labor Code, and common-law theories. She alleged that Baiza, after becoming her manager in 2021, repeatedly berated her, denied her rest breaks while permitting younger employees to take them, said she had become “too old to work,” refused her medical accommodations, told her to throw a doctor’s note in the trash, and ultimately suspended and terminated her \u2014 purportedly for taking a coworker’s shrimp cocktail from the staff refrigerator. The only claim against Baiza personally was for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).<\/p>\n

FedEx removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Baiza \u2014 a California citizen, like Reyes \u2014 was fraudulently joined. FedEx contended (1) the IIED claim was preempted by California’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and (2) Reyes’s allegations failed to plead extreme and outrageous conduct. Reyes moved to remand and sought attorneys’ fees.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Sunshine S. Sykes granted the motion to remand and denied attorneys’ fees. On the WCA preemption argument, the court explained that while ordinary employer conduct causing emotional distress (“discharge, demotion, discipline or criticism”) is preempted by the WCA, conduct that “exceeds the risks inherent in the employment relationship” \u2014 including discrimination, retaliation, and harassment \u2014 falls outside WCA exclusivity. Even where pleadings are thin, courts must resolve doubts in favor of the non-removing party and allow for the possibility of amendment. Because Reyes alleged retaliation tied to her complaints about Baiza’s discriminatory conduct, there was a non-fanciful possibility she could plead a viable IIED claim outside WCA preemption.<\/p>\n

On the “extreme and outrageous” conduct issue, the court held that Reyes’s allegations \u2014 Baiza berating her for trying to take breaks, telling her to tear up her doctor’s note, refusing accommodations, calling her “too old to work,” and retaliating with suspension and termination after she complained \u2014 could plausibly satisfy the IIED standard. Even if currently insufficient, the deficiencies could potentially be cured through amendment in state court. Because complete diversity was lacking after counting Baiza, the case was remanded. The court denied attorneys’ fees because FedEx’s removal arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, were not objectively unreasonable under Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n