Lewis v. Rhodes, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1997
• Docket Number: No. CV 96-B-0734-S.,CV 96-B-0734-S.
• Citation: 968 F.Supp. 633
• Parties: Linda N. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. RHODES, INC., a Corporation, and Ron Kirkpatrick, an individual, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

Page 633

968 F.Supp. 633

Linda N. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. RHODES, INC., a Corporation, and Ron Kirkpatrick, an individual, Defendants.

No. CV 96-B-0734-S.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

March 31, 1997.

Lawrence T. King, Dillard, Goozee & King, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Stanley A. Cash, Jennifer Devereaux Segers, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, AL, Donald B. Harden, Timothy R. Maguire, Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BLACKBURN, District Judge.

Currently before the court is the motion of plaintiff Linda N. Lewis to remand. Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the argument of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff's motion to remand is due to be granted.

This dispute arises out of defendants' decision to terminate plaintiff's employment. On February 1, 1996, plaintiff filed suit in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, alleging that defendants violated Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1, which prohibits an employer from terminating an employee for claiming workers' compensation benefits under Alabama law. Defendants removed the case to federal court on March 20, 1996, and thereafter, plaintiff filed the motion to remand presently before the court. Plaintiff contends that this suit "arises under" Alabama's workers' compensation laws and, as a result, its removal to federal court is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), "[a] civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States." The issue before the court is whether a claim for retaliation for the exercise of rights under Alabama's workers' compensation laws "arises under" those laws, precluding its removal to federal court. A number of courts have considered this question and the decisions go both ways. See, e.g., Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., 58 F.3d 1238, 1246 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that Missouri's cause of action for retaliation does "arise under" its workers' compensation laws); Spearman v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 16 F.3d 722, 725 (7th Cir.) (holding that Illinois' cause of action for retaliation does not "arise under" its workers' compensation laws), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 955, 115 S.Ct. 377, 130 L.Ed.2d 328 (1994); Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., 931 F.2d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir.1991) (holding that Texas' cause of action for retaliation does "arise under" its workers' compensation laws). Even within this district, there is a split among the judges as to whether a claim for retaliation under Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1 "arises under" Alabama's workers' compensation laws. Compare Farrior v. Sodexho, USA, 953 F.Supp. 1301 (N.D.Ala.1997) (Guin, J.) (holding that a retaliation claim under ALA. CODE § 25-5-11.1 "arises under" Alabama's workers' compensation laws); Priest v. Sealift Servs. Int'l Inc., 953 F.Supp. 363 (N.D.Ala.1997) (Acker, J.) (same as Farrior); Lackey v. Gateway Homes, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 870 (N.D.Ala.1996) (Haltom, J.) (same as Farrior); Roberts v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc., 950 F.Supp. 1509 (N.D.Ala.1996) (Smith, J.) (same as Farrior); Wiggonton v. Keystone Foods, No. CV 93-N-1865-M, 1993 WL 840293 (N.D.Ala.1993) (Nelson, J.) (same as Farrior); with Moreland v. Gold Kist, Inc., 908 F.Supp. 898, 900 (N.D.Ala.1995) (Propst, J.) (holding that § 25-5-11.1 claim does not "arise under" Alabama's workers' compensation laws); Traylor v. Lee Brass Co., No. CV 95-H-2639-E (N.D.Ala.1995) (Hancock, J.) (same as Moreland); Gilmer v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., No. CV 95-P-2009-S (N.D.Ala. 1995) (Pointer, J.) (same as Moreland). Additionally, and as both parties are aware, this court has previously held that a claim for retaliation under § 25-5-11.1 does not arise under Alabama's workers' compensation laws and, therefore, § 1445(c) does not preclude removal to federal court. See Gunn v. Fisher of Alabama, No. CV 93-B-1847-S, 1994 WL 875925 (N.D.Ala.1994) (Blackburn, J.). Upon reconsideration of this issue, however, the court concludes that a claim for retaliation under § 25-5-11.1 does arise under Alabama's workers' compensation laws, and as a result, claims of this nature may not be removed to federal court.

In its previous decision holding 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) inapplicable to retaliation claims brought pursuant to Alabama Code § 25-5-11.1, this court relied primarily on the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Jackson County Hosp. v. Alabama Hosp. Ass'n Trust, 619 So.2d 1369 (Ala.1993). In Jackson County Hospital, a hospital sued its insurance company for refusing to defend the hospital against an employee's retaliatory discharge claim under § 25-5-11.1. Id. at 1370. The hospital argued that a claim under § 25-5-11.1 is a traditional tort claim, not a claim under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act, and, therefore, should be included under the hospital's insurance agreement. Id. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed with the hospital and held that a retaliatory discharge claim under § 25-5-11.1 "does not arise `under' [Alabama's] workers' compensation law" for purposes of the general liability insurance provision at issue in the case. Id. at 1371.

Upon reconsideration, the court is now of the opinion that Jackson County Hospital should be afforded little, if any, weight in determining the issue before the court. First, because the issue in Jackson County Hospital involved the scope of coverage under a general liability insurance policy, it is not clear whether the court used the phrase "arising under" as that term is used under federal law. Second, and most importantly, even if the court in Jackson County Hospital were using "arising under" in the same context as it is used under federal law, the interpretation of "arises under" and "workmen's compensation laws" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) is ultimately a question of federal law. Arthur v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 58 F.3d 121, 125 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699, 705, 92 S.Ct. 1344, 1348-49, 31 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (federal law governs construction of removal statutes). Consequently, for both of these reasons, the court declines to rely upon Jackson County Hospital.

Under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), a § 25-5-11.1 claim may not be removed if the court determines that such claim "arises under" the "workmen's compensation laws" of Alabama. Although the most well-known statutory provision containing the "arising under" language is 28 U.S.C. § 1331, there are a myriad of other jurisdictional provisions in which Congress employed this familiar phrase.¹ Despite Congress' frequent use of "arising under," the majority of cases discussing this language have done so while interpreting § 1331. However, in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988), the Court addressed the meaning of "arising under" as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1338; the Court's discussion provides significant guidance as to how "arising under" should be interpreted in § 1445(c).

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 1338 provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trade-marks." Id. (emphasis added). The issue faced by the Court in Christianson was whether the case before it was one "arising under" a federal patent statute. In reaching its decision regarding the meaning of "arising under" in § 1338, the Court stated: "Our cases interpreting identical language in other jurisdictional provisions, particularly the general federal-question provision, ... have quite naturally applied the same test." Id. at 808, 108 S.Ct. at 2173 (footnote omitted) (citation omitted). As a result, the court outlined the test for § 1331 jurisdiction, and then reformulated that test to fit the requirements of § 1338, stating: "Linguistic consistency, to which we have historically adhered, demands that § 1338(a) jurisdiction likewise extend only to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law...." Id. at 808-09, 108 S.Ct. at 2173-74. Consequently, because the Court opined that it is "quite natural" to apply the § 1331 "arising under" standards to other jurisdictional provisions that use the "arising under" language, and because "linguistic consistency" demands that identical language be interpreted in a similar manner, the court is of the opinion that Christianson mandates application of § 1331 standards to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). See In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 96-97 (5th Cir.1987) (stating that "Congress used the phrase `arising under title 11' to describe those proceedings that involve a cause of action created or determined by a statutory provision of title 11. Apparently, the phrase was taken from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, conferring federal question jurisdiction in which it carries a similar and well-accepted meaning."); Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638, 639 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984) ("In all respects relevant to this case, § 1331 and § 1337 are read alike and the same tests apply in determining whether a case is one `arising under' federal law." (citations omitted)); Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. New England Petroleum Corp., 604 F.2d 179, 183 (2nd Cir.1979) ("The use of the phrase `cases and controversies arising under' in § 211(b)(2) is strong evidence that Congress intended to borrow the body of decisional law that has developed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 and other grants of jurisdiction to the district courts over cases `arising under' various regulatory statutes. See e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340. The traditional meaning associated with these words could...