Erik Phillips-Nania v. New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights and Appalachian Mountain Club d/b/a AMC Highland Center at Crawford Notch

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses pending motions in a removed action arising from alleged religious discrimination and retaliation related to an employer’s COVID-19 policies. The court recommends retaining the plaintiff’s Title VII and related claims against the Appalachian Mountain Club in federal court while remanding the claims against the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights to state court. The document also analyzes removal jurisdiction, exhaustion and judicial review under New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination.

Holdings

1. The Merrimack County Superior Court was a state court for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and NHCHR's argument that the superior court was merely functioning as an extension or appellate arm of the Commission did not establish that removal was improper.
2. The Amended Complaint constituted a civil action within the meaning of the removal statute because it asserted independent claims for relief against AMC and NHCHR rather than merely seeking ancillary or incidental relief in an ongoing administrative proceeding.
3. The court had original federal-question jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's Title VII claims against AMC because the Amended Complaint expressly asserted federal employment-discrimination claims.
4. NHCHR's unreviewed no-probable-cause determination did not deprive the federal court of jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's Title VII claims against AMC.
5. The court had supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's New Hampshire discrimination and contract claims against AMC because they arose from the same common nucleus of operative fact as the Title VII claims.
6. The court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's state-law claims against NHCHR because those claims arose from NHCHR's later administrative investigation and determination, not from the employment events underlying the Title VII claims against AMC.

Questions Presented

1. Whether AMC removed a civil action from a state court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
2. Whether the state-court proceeding constituted a removable civil action rather than an administrative appeal or ancillary proceeding.
3. Whether the federal court had original federal-question jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's Title VII claims against AMC.
4. Whether the court had supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips-Nania's state-law claims against AMC.
5. Whether Phillips-Nania's state-law claims against NHCHR arose from the same nucleus of operative fact as his Title VII claims against AMC and therefore could remain in federal court.
6. Whether the pending motions to amend, dismiss, and file a reply should be resolved after severance and remand of the NHCHR claims.

Disposition

other