Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691 (2003)

Facts

  • Phillip T. Breuer sued his former employer, Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., in Florida state court for unpaid wages and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), invoking 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
  • Section 216(b) states that an FLSA action “may be maintained against any employer … in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction.”
  • Jim’s Concrete removed the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which permits removal of cases within federal original jurisdiction “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress.”
  • Breuer moved to remand, arguing that § 216(b)’s “may be maintained” language expressly barred removal.
  • The district court denied remand and certified the question for interlocutory appeal; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

  1. Whether FLSA § 216(b), providing that an action “may be maintained … in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” “expressly” prohibits removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Decision

  • The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Eleventh Circuit in an opinion by Justice Souter.
  • The Court held that FLSA § 216(b) does not “expressly” prohibit removal, so an FLSA action filed in state court may be removed to federal court under § 1441(a).
  • Because FLSA claims fall within federal original jurisdiction, removal is proper absent a clear statutory bar.

Legal Principles

  • Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a case within federal original jurisdiction is removable unless an Act of Congress “expressly” provides otherwise.
  • A statute “expressly” bars removal only through clear, unequivocal text; language that is silent on removal or reasonably open to more than one meaning does not qualify.
  • The phrase “may be maintained … in any Federal or State court” does not clearly guarantee that a plaintiff who files in state court may keep the case there; the term “maintain” is ambiguous and can refer to initiating or continuing an action.
  • When Congress intends to forbid removal, it can do so directly (e.g., by stating that an action “shall not be removed”); the absence of such language weighs against finding an express bar.

Conclusion

The Court held that § 216(b) of the FLSA does not expressly prohibit removal, and defendants may remove FLSA actions from state court to federal court under § 1441(a) when federal jurisdiction otherwise exists.