Wider v. Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. One
| Decision Date | 10 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 3:17-cv-02117-JMC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Beyonka Wider, Plaintiff, v. Richland County School District One, Defendant. |
This matter is before the court pursuant to Plaintiff Beyonka Wider's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7), and Defendant Richland County School District One's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5). For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5).
Defendant is a public school district located in Richland County, South Carolina, organized and existing under the laws of South Carolina. (ECF No. 1-1 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Richland County, South Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 1.)
The dispute at issue in this case arises from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. (ECF No. 5-1 at 1.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a High Schools That Work1 program consultant with a ten-month contract. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff has over fifteen (15) years of experience in the educational field and holds a Doctorate in Education Administration "for teaching and learning curriculum." (Id. at ¶ 5.) Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has attended professional development events during the summer months, which are outside of her contract term. (Id. at ¶ 10, 11.) Because these events took place outside of Plaintiff's contract term, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff any wages or overtime payments for her attendance at these events. (Id. at ¶ 13, 14.)
On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, asserting state law claims under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA") and for quantum meruit. (ECF No. 1-1.) On August 10, 2017, Defendant removed the action to this court on the ground of federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)
On August 17, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Plaintiff's claims, alleging state law causes of action, are preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Plaintiff fails to assert facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 5-1 at 1.)
On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, asserting that "Plaintiff's claims for violation of SCPWA and quantum meruit arise under South Carolina state law and must be adjudicated in state court because there is neither diversity or a federal question." (ECF No. 7 at 1.)
On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, asserting that (1) Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation under the SCPWA; (2) Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for quantum meruit; (3) Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by the FLSA; and (4) Plaintiff does not assert any rights under the FLSA. (ECF No. 8.)
On August 30, 2017, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, asserting that "Defendant properly removed this case on the ground of federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff's Complaint seeks recovery of minimum wages and overtime pay, directly implicating the FLSA, and because Plaintiff's allegations raise questions of exempt employee status and compensable time under the FLSA." (ECF No. 9 at 1.)
On August 30, 2017, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's response (regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss), largely re-asserting its position in its initial Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10.)
A party seeking to remove a case from state to federal court bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is proper at the time it files its petition for removal. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 73 (1996). If federal jurisdiction is doubtful, remand is necessary. Mulchaey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994); see Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993) ().
The right to remove a case from state to federal court derives solely from 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." Id. at § 1441(a). Moreover, in a case that does not contain an allegation of diversity citizenship between the parties, the propriety of removal is based on a district court's "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States"—stated differently, the propriety of removal is based on whether a federal question has been presented. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant may properly remove a case wherein a plaintiff asserts claims that Congress has so completely preempted "in a particular area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character." Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1987). If the plaintiff's demand "necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law," federal question jurisdiction is appropriate. Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint." Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Republican Party of N. C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (). To be legally sufficient, a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion "should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support its claim and would entitle it to relief." Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir. 1999). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
The first dispute in this matter is whether Plaintiff's claim under the SCPWA is preempted by the FLSA. The FLSA regulates the payment of employees as it relates to the establishment of a minimum wage and the requirement that qualifying employees who work more than forty (40) hours during a work week receive overtime payment. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207. Plaintiff asserts that she is not disputing the hourly rate at which she is compensated when she is compensated, and is not requesting to be paid for more than 40 hours of work during a work week. (ECF No. 8 at 6.) Rather, Plaintiff argues "that there are times that she works, during summer months, where she is not compensated by Defendant for the work that she performs." (Id.) Plaintiff is therefore asserting that the FLSA does not apply and her causes of action are solely based on South Carolina state law. (Id.)
Defendant contends Plaintiff's claim under the SCPWA should be dismissed because it is preempted by the FLSA. (ECF No. 5-1 at 3.) Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal laws and regulations may preempt state laws in three ways: (1) express preemption, (2) field preemption, and (3) conflict preemption. Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, 191 (4th Cir. 2007); U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the FLSA's exclusive and comprehensive enforcement scheme2 preempted state claims asserting rights conferred under the FLSA through conflict preemption. Id. at 194 (citing Kendall v. City of Chesapeake, 174 F.3d 437, 443 (4th Cir. 1999). The court finds that the state law claims Plaintiff is asserting are preempted under the FLSA through conflict preemption, and thus jurisdiction is proper in this court.
The SCPWA provides that an "employer is not permitted to withhold or divert any portion of an employee's wages unless required or permitted to do so." S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-10-40 (1976). However, the basis for Plaintiff's SCPWA claim is her allegation that Defendant did not pay her for time she spent attending professional development trainings that were outside of her contracted employment term. (ECF No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 13, 14.) The FLSA directly addresses whether time spent by an employee in attending a training activity is considered compensable work:
Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities need not be counted as working time if the following four criteria are met: (a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours; (b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; (c) The court, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee's job; and (d) The employee does not perform any productive work during such...
To continue reading
Request your trial