The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge.
The Secretary of Labor has filed an enforcement action against
an employer for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
May an employer file a counterclaim, in that enforcement
action, against the Secretary of Labor?
The employer may, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,
if the Secretary of Labor's action constitutes a final agency
action.
The United States Secretary of Labor ("the Secretary"), acting
in her official capacity, has filed the instant enforcement
action against the Excel Corporation for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Based
upon a new interpretation of the FLSA, the Secretary has alleged
that Excel violated the FLSA by failing to compensate its
employees for all of their hours of employment including, but not
limited to, time spent donning, doffing, and cleaning personal
protective equipment. Although Excel owns several meat processing
plants, the Secretary has chosen to bring an enforcement action
only against Excel's Beardstown, Illinois, processing plant.
Because the Secretary has limited her enforcement action to
only one of its processing plants, Excel seeks a declaratory
judgment so that it may obtain a ruling which will be applied
consistently to all of its meat processing plants covered by its
collective bargaining agreements. Excel believes that a
counterclaim best achieves this result with no increased burden
upon the Court. Accordingly, on December 2, 1998, Excel filed a
motion for leave to file an amended Answer and a Counterclaim for
declaratory relief. The next day, Excel filed a similar motion
asking for leave to file its Answer and Counterclaim instanter.
Although the Secretary does not object to Excel's motions for
leave to file a First Amended Answer, the Secretary does object
to Excel's motions for leave to file a Counterclaim. The
Secretary argues that Excel's Counterclaim for declaratory relief
is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. In addition,
the Secretary asserts
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Excel's
Counterclaim.
Excel argues that sovereign immunity does not bar its
Counterclaim because the 1976 amendments to the Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 702, eliminated the
Government's defense of sovereign immunity in declaratory
judgment actions. Furthermore, Excel claims that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over its Counterclaim based upon
supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367), original subject
matter jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331), and/or jurisdiction over
statutes regulating commerce (28 U.S.C. § 1337).
Although the Secretary's sovereign immunity and subject matter
jurisdiction arguments are somewhat intertwined, the Court will
consider them separately for purposes of ruling upon Excel's
motions.
A. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Contrary to its argument, none of the statutes cited by Excel
provide an independent basis for jurisdiction allowing it to file
a Counterclaim.*fn1 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides supplemental
jurisdiction over pendent and ancillary claims in cases over
which a federal district court already has subject matter
jurisdiction. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1337 provide subject
matter jurisdiction based upon actions arising under federal laws
and actions arising under any act regulating commerce,
respectively.
Although the Court has jurisdiction over the Secretary's
enforcement action, although the FLSA is a federal statute, and
although the FLSA regulates commerce, the Act does not provide a
cause of action for Excel's Counterclaim. The FLSA provides that
employees and the Secretary of Labor may bring and maintain
causes of action against an employer who is violating the Act; it
does not provide for a declaratory judgment action by an employer
against the Secretary of Labor.*fn2 29 U.S.C. ยง 215, 216, &
217. Because the FLSA does not provide a cause of ...