Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
538 U.S. 691, 123 S. Ct. 1882, 155 L. Ed. 2d 923 (2003)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Phillip T. Breuer (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc. (Jim’s Concrete) (defendant) in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the act) for unpaid wages. Section 216(b) of the act provided that a lawsuit brought under the act could be maintained against an employer in any federal or state court with jurisdiction over the parties. Jim’s Concrete removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which allowed a defendant to remove a case filed in state court to federal court if the federal court had original jurisdiction over the case. Breuer moved to remand the case, arguing that the language of § 216(b), allowing a plaintiff to maintain a case in state or federal court, prohibited Jim’s Concrete from removing the case. Breuer highlighted the use of the term maintain to argue that Congress intended a case filed in one court to stay in that court until final judgment was rendered. The district court denied Breuer’s motion. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, holding that because § 216(b) did not expressly prohibit removal, the removal of Breuer’s case was proper. The court of appeals supported its holding by demonstrating that Congress had prohibited removal under other federal statutes by including language explicitly forbidding removal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.