Opinion ID: 19308
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: remand of the retaliatory discharge claim.

Text: 32 Having established that plaintiffs' retaliatory discharge claim is not pre-empted, we now turn to the issue of whether the district court properly denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. Although the question confronting us is whether the case should be remanded to state court, rather than whether the defendant properly removed the case to federal court, the issue of removal controls our analysis. See Roadway I, 931 F.2d at 1091. 33 In an effort to control the ever-increasing flow of compensation cases into already strained federal dockets, Congress declared such actions non-removable. 34 A civil action in any State court arising under the workmens' compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States. 35 28 U.S.C. 1445(c) (1994). This section reflects a strong congressional policy that where the state court has been utilized by one of the parties in the state compensation machinery, the case should remain in the state court for its ultimate disposition. Kay v. Home Indemnity Co., 337 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1964). We remain convinced that workmen's compensation cases have little real business in a federal court, and have therefore, been reluctant to strain to find a way to entertain such suits. Id. at 901. 4 36 In Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc., we held that 1445(c) prohibits the removal of any state worker's compensation claims. 132 F.3d 1112, 1118 (5th Cir. 1998) This bright-line rule is consistent with the wording of 1445(c). See Roadway I, 931 F.2d at 1092 (Because Congress intended that all cases arising under a state's workers' compensation scheme remain in state court, we believe that we should read section 1445(c) broadly to further that purpose.). In that vein, we find that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion to remand their retaliatorydischarge claim. 5 37