## Facts

- Greg Eastus worked for Blue Bell Creameries for over ten years, primarily as a route salesman.
- Eastus requested time off in mid-July 1994 in anticipation of his wife’s imminent childbirth.
- Eastus alleged that management threatened to fire him if he took the time off and that he was terminated on August 5, 1994, because of the request.
- Eastus asserted a federal claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging prohibited conduct connected to his leave request.
- Greg and Paige Eastus asserted a Texas intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on the allegedly outrageous nature of firing him while he was under severe stress and his wife was pregnant and overdue.
- Eastus also asserted a Texas tortious interference claim, alleging Blue Bell made false post-termination statements to prospective employers that he was hard to work with and disloyal, allegedly in retaliation for his complaints about work equipment.
- Blue Bell contended Eastus was terminated for insubordination and profane statements toward supervisors.

## Issues

1. Whether, after removal based on an FMLA federal-question claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) authorized remand of either Texas state-law claim.
2. Whether the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was “separate and independent” from the FMLA claim under § 1441(c).
3. Whether the tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim was “separate and independent” from the FMLA claim under § 1441(c).
4. Whether the appellate court could review the remand decision when the district court purported to act under § 1441(c).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that § 1441(c) did not authorize remand of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The Fifth Circuit held that the tortious interference claim was “separate and independent” and could be remanded under § 1441(c).
- The court reversed the remand order as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, affirmed the remand order as to the tortious interference claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court treated the remand determination as reviewable because the dispute concerned whether the district court exceeded § 1441(c)’s authorization, not a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) (as then in effect), a district court may remand state-law matters only if they are joined with a federal-question claim and are “separate and independent,” and state law predominates in those matters.
- “Separate and independent” is construed narrowly; claims are not separate and independent when they seek relief for a single alleged wrong arising from an interlocked series of transactions, even if pleaded under different legal theories.
- A state tort claim based on the same termination events that form the basis of an FMLA claim is not “separate and independent” and cannot be remanded under § 1441(c).
- A state tort claim based on distinct post-termination conduct directed at third parties (such as alleged interference with future employment) may be “separate and independent” from a federal wrongful-termination theory and may be remanded under § 1441(c).
- Appellate review is available when a remand order is challenged on the ground that the district court purported to act under § 1441(c) but exceeded the statute’s limits.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that § 1441(c) permitted remand only of the state claim resting on alleged post-termination interference with prospective employment, while barring remand of an emotional-distress claim that was tied to the same alleged wrongful firing as the FMLA claim.


Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 F.3d 100 (5th Cir. 1996)