Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied John Thomas’s motion to remand his action against HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC, and Advanced Technology Electrical Services, Inc. The court held that Thomas’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim created federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the related South Carolina Payment of Wages Act claim fell within supplemental jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had federal-question jurisdiction over Thomas's Fair Labor Standards Act claim despite his argument that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000.
- Whether the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas's South Carolina Payment of Wages Act claim.
Holdings
- The court had federal-question jurisdiction because Thomas's complaint expressly alleged a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal statute; the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was therefore irrelevant.
- The court had supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas's South Carolina Payment of Wages Act claim because it arose from the same alleged failure to pay wages and per diem as the FLSA claim.
Key quotations
“Because the FLSA is a federal statute, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Thomas’s FLSA claim.”
“And, it has supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s SCPWA claim.”
Factual background
HardHat, a staffing agency, employed Thomas and placed him with ATE as a lead electrician. Defendants sent Thomas to Georgia for a four-week assignment and allegedly agreed to pay him $50 per day in per diem and provide lodging. Thomas alleged that he received neither the agreed per diem nor his wages and had to pay for lodging for half of the assignment.
Procedural history
John Thomas filed claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act in state court. HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Advanced Technology Electrical Services, Inc. consented to removal. Thomas moved to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. The district court denied the motion.