Thompson v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-2163-TUA.,92-2163-TUA.
• Citation: 797 F. Supp. 618
• Parties: Kevin Gale THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CORT FURNITURE RENTAL CORP., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

797 F. Supp. 618

Kevin Gale THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CORT FURNITURE RENTAL CORP., Defendant.

No. 92-2163-TUA.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, W.D.

June 15, 1992.

John S. Lawson, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff.

William A. Blue, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND

TURNER, District Judge.

Plaintiff Kevin Gale Thompson ("Thompson"), a citizen of Tennessee, filed this wrongful discharge action in the Circuit Court of Tennessee against Cort Furniture Rental Corp. ("Cort"), a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia. Presently before the court is plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Plaintiff contends that under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) this action was improvidently removed by defendant inasmuch as it arises under Tennessee's worker's compensation laws. On the other hand, defendant argues that plaintiff's action arises under Tennessee tort rather than worker's compensation law thus making section 1445(c) inapplicable.

I. Background Facts.

According to his complaint, Thompson suffered three separate injuries to his back from September 1989 to November 1990, while lifting furniture in the course of his duties with Cort. Thompson fully recovered from each injury and promptly returned to work each time. On January 16, 1991, two days after returning to work following his recovery from the third injury, Thompson was told he was being discharged because he was "accident prone." Thompson alleges that Cort held an employees' meeting on January 17, 1991, where the employees were told that Thompson had been "discharged because he was `trying to get money from the company' and was a `threat to the company'." Plaintiff's Complaint at 2.

Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee alleging that he had been discharged in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114 in retaliation for filing worker's compensation claims. Following service of process, Cort filed a notice of removal based upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

Plaintiff subsequently filed this motion to remand arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) proscribes the removal of any action "arising under the workmen's compensation laws" of the State. Plaintiff argues that inasmuch as he was allegedly discharged in retaliation for filing claims for worker's compensation benefits, such suit "arises" under the worker's compensation laws and should therefore be remanded. The court agrees.

II. Remand under Section 1445(c).

It is axiomatic that federal law governs the construction of removal statutes. See Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699, 705, 92 S.Ct. 1344, 1349, 31 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). The removal statute at issue, 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), provides an exclusion to the general rule that diversity suits may be removed to federal court. Section 1445(c) reads:

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.

On its face, the statute appears to contain a fairly explicit prohibition of removal. There are, however, two ambiguities in the language used. These ambiguities revolve around: first, the intended meaning of the phrase "arising under"; and, second, what is encompassed in the term "laws" as used in this statute.

Subsection (c) was added to section 1445 by amendment in 1958. See Pub.L. No. 85-554, § 5, 72 Stat. 415, July 25, 1958, reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 487, 488. The legislative history of that amendment includes a Senate Report discussing the rationale behind the provision. See S.Rep. No. 1830, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3099, 3103-06. Without a doubt, Congress's primary reason for adopting the amendment was its concern that the removal of worker's compensation cases where there was complete diversity of parties was congesting the federal courts. This, congestion and concomitant slow-down in the dispute resolution process, in turn defeated one of the purposes for which such laws were developed, namely to provide for the expeditious and inexpensive settlement of claims for worker's injuries. Id. at 3106.

The legislative history for section 1445(c) thus reflects a congressional desire to narrow the scope of diversity cases subject to removal from state to federal district courts, while providing for prompt resolution of disputes.

Turning to the specific language embodied in section 1445(c), it seems clear that where a cause of action is specifically enumerated in a statute, it "arises under" that statute. See, e.g., Kilpatrick v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc., 708 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ala.1989). Where, as here, however, the statute does not explicitly provide for the cause of action, but the court finds such action to be necessarily implied in order to give effect to the statute, does such judicially recognized action also "arise under" the Act? The greater weight of authority is in the affirmative.

Although the language in section 1445(c) has not been specifically construed by the Sixth Circuit, there is ample authority from the United States Supreme Court construing nearly identical language in other jurisdictional statutes and from several lower courts construing such language under section 1445(c). Most notably, the phrase "arising under" has been construed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.¹ However, the phrase also appears in several other sections of Title 28, conveying on the federal courts particular grants of jurisdiction.² The meaning given to the phrase in each statutory provision appears to be the same. See generally 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3562, at 17-48 (1984 & Supp.1992).

In the seminal case Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936), Justice Cardozo, when construing whether a controversy before the Court "arose" under federal law, stated:

To bring a case within the meaning of section 1331, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action. . . .

Id. at 112, 57 S.Ct. at 97.

The Court noted the need for pragmatism in making such determination stating:

To define broadly and in the abstract "a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States" has hazards of a kindred order. What is needed is something of that common-sense accommodation of judgment to kaleidoscopic situations which characterizes the law in its treatment of problems of causation. . . . To set bounds to the pursuit, the courts have formulated the distinction between controversies that are basic and those that are collateral, between disputes that are necessary and those that are merely possible.

Id. at 117-18, 57 S.Ct. at 100. This principle of pragmatism has been repeatedly applied by the Court when construing such language in subsequent controversies and other statutes.

In Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., 931 F.2d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir.1991), the Fifth Circuit stated: "We do not see any reason not to define "arising under" in section 1445(c) as we have defined it in section 1331." The court "read section 1445(c) broadly to further" Congress's intent that "all cases under a state's workers' compensation scheme remain in state court." Id. The Jones court held that notwithstanding the statutory embodiment of the civil cause of action in a separate provision,³ "such suit arose under the workers' compensation laws of Texas within the meaning of section 1445(c)." Id. The court concluded, "were it not for the workers' compensation laws, article 8307c would not exist." Thus, a separate civil action brought pursuant to section 8307c "arises under the workers' compensation laws of Texas." Id. See Thomas v. Kroger Co., 583 F.Supp. 1031 (S.D.W.Va.1984) (reaching a similar result).

Congress's use of the word "laws" in section 1445(c) rather than "Acts" or "statutes" seems to indicate it envisaged a broader application of the term's use. As noted above, section 1331 uses similar language and provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction in actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties" of the United States. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court when construing this language in National Farmers Union Insurance Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985) stated:

It is well settled that this statutory grant of "jurisdiction will support claims founded upon federal common law as well as those of a statutory origin." Federal common law as articulated in rules that are fashioned by court decisions are "laws" as that term is used in § 1331.

Id. at 850, 105 S.Ct. at 2450-51 (footnotes citing numerous cases omitted) (emphasis added). See also Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 99-100, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 1390-91, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972).

Section 1445(c) is similar in construction. It reads: "arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State." (emphasis added). Given the Supreme Court's construction of the statutory use of the word "laws" in section 1331 as encompassing the common law articulated in court decisions as well as statutory enactments, this court believes Congress did not intend to constrict the phrase "workmen's compensation laws" to statutory enactments alone. Rather, the court believes the phrase encompasses both statutory enactments and the common law.

III. Tennessee Worker's Compensation Law.

Having decided that section 1445(c)'s exclusion embraces both statutory enactments and the common law and that such judicial precedent "arises under" the "laws" referred to, the court turns to the law and facts of the instant case. The Tennessee Worker's Compensation Act was enacted in 1919. 1919 Tenn.Pub.Acts, ch. 123. Section 16 of such Act, codified at Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-114 (1991), provides:

No contract or agreement, written or implied, or rule,

...