Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—W.D. Pa.: Court again remands Steelworkers’ overtime claims to Pennsylvania state court, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The three cases allege that U.S. Steel violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act at three plants in its Mon Valley Works.

U.S. Steel impermissibly removed to federal district court putative class Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act overtime claims brought by three Steelworkers who alleged that the company failed to pay overtime for activities they performed before and after their scheduled shifts, a federal district court found. The manufacturer, which had unsuccessfully removed the claims previously, argued that they were preempted by federal labor law and that a 2021 grievance showed an overlap of issues between them and the parties’ labor contract, but the employer’s re-removals were based on the same legal grounds as its first removals, and were impermissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (Guidas v. U.S. Steel Corp., Nos. 2:24-cv-305, 2:24-cv-969, and 2:24-cv-1174 (W.D. Pa. July 8, 2026)).

Putative class overtime claims. The three plaintiffs brought putative class actions alleging that U.S. Steel violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) by failing to pay them and other hourly employees for activities they performed before and after their scheduled shifts. The three separate actions alleged that the company violated the PMWA at all three steel plants that constitute its Mon Valley Works in western Pennsylvania. The cases were initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

First removal. U.S. Steel removed all three to federal district court, arguing that the claims were preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA.

Remands. The three judges assigned to the cases all granted the respective plaintiffs’ motions to remand, and the cases were consolidated for discovery.

Second removal. In the course of discovery, U.S. Steel alleged, it “discovered that, in February 2021, hourly employees at its Clarion plant filed a grievance asserting that they were entitled to compensation for the activities upon which Plaintiff bases his suit, and the grievance commission determined that such compensation was not owed to the grieving hourly employees under the terms of the [labor contract].”

Based on this alleged discovery, U.S. Steel again removed all three cases, arguing that the existence of the grievance showed the overlap of issues between the employees’ claims under the PMWA and the provisions of the labor contract that formed the basis of the grievance.

Motions to remand. The cases were consolidated before a single federal district judge, and the plaintiffs again sought remand to Pennsylvania court. They argued that the re-removals of the cases violated the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and were procedurally untenable.

Section 1447(d). The court observed that Section 1447(d) provides, “An order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except that an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”

Though the Third Circuit has held that Section 1447(d) is not an absolute bar to re-removal, a second removal must be “based on grounds different than the first removal.” This, noted the court, in turn requires “more than the discovery of additional evidence to support the same theory relied upon in the first removal.” Federal courts must remand where a re-removal does not offer a new theory of removal and the same arguments are “simply repackaged to include additional factual evidence.”

Impermissible. The court thus found U.S. Steel’s re-removals impermissible under Section 1447(d). The second removals, the court noted, were not “based on grounds different than the first removal[s].” Both sets of removals were based on the theory that the actions are completely preempted by federal labor law because the court must examine the labor contract, and the only difference now was one of evidence: U.S. Steel now claimed that its discovery of the 2021 grievance supported its preemption theory. “The discovery of alleged new evidence,” the court emphasized, “is a prototypical basis for a motion for reconsideration—which is barred under Section 1447(d).” Having “simply repackaged [its same, previously rejected, basis for removal] to include additional factual evidence,” U.S. Steel thus failed to provide a proper basis for removal again.

The case is Nos. 2:24-cv-305, 2:24-cv-969, and 2:24-cv-1174.

Judge: Stickman, W., IV

Attorneys: G. Timothy Conboy (Conboy Law) for Ronald Guidas, Chase Shaffer, and James Nadalin. Laura Bunting-Williams (Jackson Lewis) for United States Steel Corp.

Companies: United States Steel Corp.

Cases: WageHour Overtime Procedure EvidenceDiscovery StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews