At page 678 Limitation of injunctive relief to Secretary of Labor13 citing casesaffn-ming dismissal of FLSA claim for unpaid wages against state based on Eleventh Amendment immunity
- Keeler v. Florida Dep't of Health, 397 F. App'x 579 (11th Cir. 2010).unpublishedId. at 678.
- Keller v. Florida Dep't of Health, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2010).published (affn-ming dismissal of FLSA claim for unpaid wages against state based on Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Jarrett v. Alexander, 235 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (M.D. Ala. 2002).publishedPowell v. State of Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir.1998).
- Bailey v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc., 280 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002).publishedIn Powell, we held that the Secretary alone could bring an action for injunctive relief for violations of the FLSA’s wage and overtime provisions, but did not address the question now before us: whether an employee may obtain injunctive re…
- Bailey v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2001).publishedThe plaintiffs’ argument conflicts with Powell v. State of Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 916 , 118 S.Ct. 2297 , 141 L.Ed.2d 158 (1998), which holds that “the right to bring an action for injunctive relief u…
- Media Gen. Operations Inc. v. Herman, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Ga. 2001).publishedThis led the Powell court to conclude that “the right to bring an action for in-junctive relief under the [FLSA] rests exclusively with the United States Secretary of Labor.” 132 F.3d at 678.
- Luder v. Endicott, 86 F. Supp. 2d 854 (W.D. Wis. 2000).publishedHowever, § 217 is limited by 29 U.S.C. § 211 (a), *858 which states: “Except as provided in section 212 of this title [dealing with child labor], the Administrator shall bring all actions under section 217 of this title to restrain violati…
- Bjornson v. Daido Metal U.S.A., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 837 (N.D. Ill. 1998).publishedDespite that aside (one step below dictum) in Avitia , every Circuit that has addressed the issue over a period spanning more than a half century has agreed that the plain language of Act §§ 211(a) and 217 allows only the Secretary of Labo…
- Belch v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (M.D. Ga. 1998).publishedSee Powell v. State of Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir.1998); Mills v. State of Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 48 (1st Cir.1997).
- Elaine Chao, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc. Capital Factors, Inc. Ron Lusk, Individually & as President of Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc., Kenneth Welt, Bankr. Tr. for Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2001).publishedSee, e.g., Powell v. State of Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir. 1998); Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F.2d 682, 688 (6th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds, 435 U.S. 911 (1978); Wirtz v. Malthor, 391 F.2d 1 , 3 (9th Cir. 1968); Wirtz v. Jo…
Show 3 more citing cases
- Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs. Inc., 270 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2001).publishedSee, e.g., Powell v. State of Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir.1998); Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F.2d 682, 688 (6th Cir.1976), rev’d on other grounds, 435 U.S. 911 , 98 S.Ct. 1463 , 55 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978); Wirtz v. Malthor, 391 F.2d 1 ,…
- Kicklighter v. McIntosh Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (S.D. Ga. 2016).published
- Ryan, No. 8:26-cv-00413 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2026).
At page 677 “the right to bring an action for injunctive relief under the fair labor standards act rests exclusively with the united states secretary of labor.”1 citing case
- Micone v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Alabama, LLC (MAG2), No. 2:24-cv-00325 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 10, 2025).(Although this Court has not yet addressed the issue, we follow the decisions of the other circuits which have held that the plain language of the Act provides that the Secretary of Labor has the exclusive right to brin…)
Other citing cases
- Bunt v. Texas Gen. Land Off., 72 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Tex. 1999).published
- Iris I. Varner, & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee v. Illinois State Univ., 150 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998).published
- Chris Ramlochan v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Com., 549 F. App'x 869 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublished
- Tolliver v. Child.'s Home-Chambliss Shelter, 784 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Tenn. 2011).published
- Rossi v. Associated Limousine Servs., Inc., 438 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2006).published
- Wendy Elwell, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Univ. Hospitals Home Care Servs., Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, 276 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2002).published
- Abril v. Commonwealth of VA, 145 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 1998).published
- Abril v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 145 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 1998).published
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Lawton Chiles, Governor, William Linder, Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Management Services, Defendants-Appellees
Plaintiff, James E. Powell, attempting to bring a class action, sued the State of Florida for back wages for overtime work and for injunctive enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (1994). He alleges that he and his alleged class members were misclassified as “excluded” employees for the purpose of not paying overtime wages for overtime hours that they worked.
The district court properly dismissed the claim for unpaid overtime wages based on the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). See Quillin v. Oregon, 127 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir.1997); Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir.1997); Mills v. Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir.1997); Aaron v. Kansas, 115 F.3d 813, 814 (10th Cir.1997); Raper v. Iowa, 115 F.3d 623, 624 (8th Cir.1997); Balgowan v. New Jersey, 115 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir.1997); Mood v. Arkansas State Police Dep’t, 111 F.3d 585, 586 (8th Cir.1997); Wilson-Jones v. Caviness, 99 F.3d 203, 210 (6th Cir.1996), reh’g denied and amended by 107 F.3d 358 (6th Cir.1997). Compare Timmer v. Michigan Dep’t of Commerce, 104 F.3d 833, 838-40 (6th Cir.1997) (no Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits brought under the Equal Pay Act because that Act could have been passed pursuant to Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment powers).
The district court properly held that the right to bring an action for injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act rests exclusively with the United States Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(a), 216(b) (1994); Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15 Fed.Reg. 3174, reprinted in 5 U.S.C.App. at 1469 (1994). Although this Court has not yet addressed the issue, we follow the decisions of the other circuits which have held that the plain language of the Act provides that the Secretary of Labor has the exclusive right to bring an action for injunctive relief. See Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 750 F.2d 47, 51 (1984 ) (“only the Secretary is vested with the authority to seek an injunction”); Morelock v. NCR Corp., 546 F.2d 682, 688 (6th Cir.1976), rev’d on other grounds, 435 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 1463, 55 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978) (“[Ijndividuals are limited to seeking legal remedies and are precluded from obtaining injunctive relief.”); Powell v. Washington Post Co., 267 F.2d 651, 652 (D.C.Cir.1959) (“In so far as plaintiffs prayer relates to action by the Secretary to restrain violations, the answer is that the appeal is to[*679] his discretion.”); Roberg v. Phipps Estate, 156 F.2d 958, 968 (2d Cir.1946) (“[T]he Administrator has exclusive authority to bring such an [injunction] action.”); Bowe v. Judson C. Burns, Inc., 187 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir.1943) (“We think it is plain from this language that the right of the administrator to bring an action for injunctive relief is an exclusive right.”).
With this decision, it is apparent that the argument that alleged class members should have been given opt-in notification is moot.
AFFIRMED.