Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00967/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA MALONE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05CV967-T

)

UNIFIRST, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In t he comp laint filed in this action on June 10, 2005 and served on the defendant

on August 2, 2005, the pro se plaintiff alleged facts describing an on-the-job injury and

resultant medical treatment. She further alleged:

I have not received the proper considerations for m[y] circumstances within

the guidelines of the [defendant’s] regulations, the State of Alabama Laws

as well as the U.S. Constitution with respect t o ‘protecting or guaranteeing

me Equal protection under t he law’. As of two months ago it was brought

to my attention that: anot her emp loy ee was injured and allowed to work to

take care of a family without any second thoughts. 

(Comp laint, pp. 1-2). Defendant removed the action to this court on October 7, 2005, over

two months after it was served with the summons and complaint. Defendant acknowledges

that plaintiff “did make a single reference t o t he United States Constitution,” (Defendant’s

response to show cause order, Doc. # 8, ¶ 1). Nevertheless, defendant contends that it

“did not appear to UniFirst that [plaint iff] intended to assert a separate constitutional

Case 1:05-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 10 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 4
1

 Defendant correctly notes that a state workers’ compensation claim is not removable

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). However, a claim over which the court has federal question

jurisdiction may properly be removed even if it is joined with a workers’ compensation claim. See

Reed v. The Heil Company, 206 F.3d 1055, 1057 (11th Cir. 2000)(remanding claim arising under

workers’ compensation laws but affirming summary judgment on ADA claim, stating, “the district

court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Reed’s retaliatory discharge claim. Reed’s ADA claim,

however, was properly before the district court.”). 

2

 In its show cause order, the court advised the plaintiff that if she “wishes to waive the

issue of the timeliness of the removal and prosecute the case in this court rather than the state court,

she should notify the court in writing on or before October 21, 2005.” (Doc. # 7, p. 2). Plaintiff’s

response to the show cause order is ambiguous. Plaintiff expresses her desire to “get this matter on

the next available docket” but states that she wishes to proceed “without any waivers.” (Doc. # 9).

In view of the latter language, the court cannot construe this document as a waiver of the timeliness

2

cause of action or any claim outside of the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act.” (Id.).1

Defendant argues t hat it did not understand that plaintiff intended to assert an Equal

Protection claim under the United States Constitution unt il Sep tember 13, 2005, when

plaintiff filed a “Motion to Proceed/Motion to Amend Complaint” in which she clarified her

claim. (Id., ¶¶ 3-4). It contends that the case was not removable until it became apparent

from plaintiff’s September 13, 2005 “motion to proceed” t hat plaintiff asserts an equal

p rot ection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See

Notice of Removal). 

However, upon a review of the allegations of the complaint, it is clear to the court

that plaintiff asserted an equal protection claim pursuant to the United St at es Constitution.

This claim was removable, and defendant failed to file a notice of removal within thirty days

of service of the initial pleading as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).2

 Thus, the action was

Case 1:05-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 10 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 4
issue. Plaintiff is advised that, if the recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is adopted

by the District Judge, both her workers’ compensation claim and her equal protection claim will be

returned to the Circuit Court of Houston County for resolution. If plaintiff wishes to waive the

issue of defendant’s failure to timely remove the action to this court and have her equal protection

claim considered by this court, she should notify the court by written objection to this

recommendation. Plaintiff’s waiver of the timeliness issue would not give this court jurisdiction over

the workers’ compensation claim, however, so any such claim would have to be litigated in state

court.

3

not timely removed and is due to be remanded to the Circuit Court of Houst on County.

Furt her, to the extent plaintiff asserts a claim arising under the workers’ compensation laws

of the State of Alabama, that claim is due to be remanded for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Reed, supra; 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrat e Judge that this action

be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Houston County, Alabama.

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and to serve a cop y on t he p art ies to this action. The parties are DIRECTED to file

any objections to the said Recommendation on or before November 2, 2005. Any

objections filed must specifically ident ify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from at t acking on

Case 1:05-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 10 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 4
4

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon

grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,

996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

Done, this 25th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00967-MHT-SRW Document 10 Filed 10/25/05 Page 4 of 4