DORIS CHANEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, GERALD HAMMOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 2001-09-14
No. 01-10268
Before CARNES, MARCUS and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
264 F.3d 1325 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs are “temporary augmentation” employees of contractors who performed temporary construction work and temporary operation and maintenance for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Employees of TVA are, in accord with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, 16 U.S.C. § 831 (1994), paid the prevailing wage rates for work of a similar nature in the community. Plaintiffs allege that, though hired by contractors they perform work similar to or equivalent to that done by TVA employees, and therefore are entitled to be paid the same wages paid to trade and labor employees of TVA itself. Plaintiffs allege a federal jurisdictional question. TVA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The district court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its interpretation and application of statutory provisions. See JBP Acquisitions, LP v. U.S., 224 F. 3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir.2000).

The issue before us is whether the district court correctly interpreted 16 U.S.C. § 831b. The statute states in relevant part: “In the event any dispute arises as to what are the prevailing rates of wages, the question shall be referred to the Secretary of Labor for determination, and his decision shall be final.” 16 U.S.C. § 831b. The statute is clear on its face. In this case there is a dispute. The dispute involves the prevailing rates of wages. The Secretary of Labor has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving the prevailing rates of wages. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002)
    …court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. We review de novo a district court’s “interpretation and application of statutory provisions” that go to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Chaney v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 264 F. 3d 1325, 1326 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam). The district court’s factual findings with respect to jurisdiction, however, are reviewed for clear error. Scarfo, 175 F. 3d at 960. In reviewing the jurisdictional issue raised here, we note that the government…
  • United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …novo a district court’s ‘interpretation and application of statutory provisions’ that go to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Tinoco, 304 F. 3d 1088, 1114 (11th Cir.2002) (quoting Chaney v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 264 F. 3d 1325, 1326 (11th Cir.2001)). “The district court’s factual findings with respect to jurisdiction, however, are reviewed for clear error.” Id. (citing Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F. 3d 957, 960 (11th Cir.1999)). IV.DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, we add…
  • United States v. Mahendra Pratap Gupta, 363 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2004)
    …ts, reinstate the jury’s verdicts, and remand for sentencing. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of statutory provisions that go to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Chaney v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 264 F. 3d 1325, 1326 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam). Factual findings made by the district court with respect to jurisdiction, however, are reviewed only for clear error. United States v. McPhee, 336 F. 3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.2003). Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rule…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw