Breuer v. Jim's Concrete

Media Items
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Lisa Schiavo Blatt (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent)
Donald E. Pinaud, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Andrew S. Hament (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-337
Petitioner: 
Breuer
Respondent: 
Jim's Concrete
Opinion: 
538 U.S. 691 (2003)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Breuer v. Jim's Concrete , 538 U.S. 691 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_337)
Facts of the Case: 

Philip Breuer sued in state court to resolve an overtime dispute under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Attorneys for Breuer's employer, Jim's Concrete of Brevard, had the case moved to federal court by citing the federal removal statute. According to the statute, defendants in state court cases dealing with federal laws may have the case moved to federal court "unless otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress." Breuer's attorney argued that Congress had provided for suits under the FLSA to be heard in state court and that the case should therefore be returned to state court; attorneys for Jim's Concrete disagreed. The district court refused to send the case back to state court. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question: 

In providing for suits under the FLSA, did Congress bar removal of such actions from state to federal court?

Conclusion: 

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered David H. Souter, the Court held that the FLSA does not bar removal of a suit from state to federal court, thus Breuer's case was properly removed under section 1441. The Court reasoned that nothing on the face of the FLSA looked like an express prohibition of removal, there being no mention of removal, let alone of prohibition, given that word "maintain" and its bearing on removal was ambiguous at best. Rejecting all of Breuer's arguments, the Court noted that numerous other statutes provided indisputable prohibitions of removal, which demonstrated Congress's intent to give plaintiffs an absolute choice of forum in unmistakable terms.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Jim's Concrete, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fair Labor Standards

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter