A woman sues her former employer in state court alleging age and sex discrimination under both state and federal law. The employer removes the case to federal court. The court should likely:

• A. Remand the entire case
• B. Remand the state claims but keep the federal claims
• C. Retain the case to avoid bias from a judge who has shown hostility toward the plaintiff’s counsel
• D. Retain the case because the removal was timely and federal claims exist

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that once a federal question is raised in a case removed from state court, the federal court generally has jurisdiction to hear the entire action and can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims as part of the same case. This supports keeping the case in federal court so all claims are resolved in one forum and under federal standards.

If there’s visible hostility toward the plaintiff’s counsel by the judge, the federal court can address concerns about fairness through its own procedures (such as recusal or reassignment) without sending the case back to a state court where bias concerns might persist. Retaining the case in federal court to manage potential impartiality issues aligns with ensuring a fair process, rather than remanding to a possibly biased forum.

Remanding the entire case would dismiss the federal claim in effect and contradict removal; remanding only the state claims would leave the federal claim in federal court but fragment the proceedings. The presence of a federal claim and proper removal typically argues for retention, and the added fairness concern makes retention the more appropriate choice in this context.