Alaska Airlines v. Judy Schurke
846 F.3d 1081
9th Cir.2017Background
- Flight attendant Laura Masserant requested two days off in May to care for her sick child but had no available sick leave; she had seven days of vacation leave scheduled for December.
- Under the CBA between Alaska Airlines and the Associated Flight Attendants, vacation is scheduled the prior October, cannot be taken earlier except by limited mechanisms, and absences without available leave accrue disciplinary "points."
- Washington's Family Care Act (WFCA) allows employees to use any paid leave they are "entitled to" under a CBA or employer policy to care for family members, and directs that employees must comply with CBA terms except regarding the choice of leave.
- Masserant and her union filed an administrative complaint with the Washington Department of Labor & Industries; the agency found in her favor and fined the airline. The airline sued in federal court seeking a declaration that the claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
- The district court rejected preemption; the Ninth Circuit majority reversed, holding the RLA preempts the state enforcement action because Masserant’s claimed right depends on interpretation of the CBA and thus must proceed through the RLA grievance/adjustment-board process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the WFCA claim is preempted by the RLA | Masserant: WFCA creates an independent state right to use accrued paid leave for family care that can be enforced in state proceedings | Alaska Airlines: WFCA right depends on entitlement under the CBA, so dispute is a minor RLA dispute requiring CBA grievance/Adjustment Board | Held: Preempted — WFCA protection is conditioned on CBA entitlement, so resolution requires analysis of the CBA and must go through RLA procedures |
| Whether resolution requires interpretation vs. mere consultation of the CBA | Masserant: CBA terms are undisputed; the state claim can be decided without interpreting the CBA | Alaska Airlines: The statute conditions the right on CBA terms, so the CBA must be analyzed to determine entitlement | Held: Court: Because the statute makes entitlement depend on the CBA, the claim is "substantially dependent" on CBA analysis and is preempted |
| Whether the WFCA creates an independent right to paid leave | Masserant: WFCA supplies a statutory right (choice-of-leave) separate from the CBA | Alaska Airlines: WFCA creates no standalone entitlement to paid leave; it only modifies how existing CBA-provided leave may be used | Held: Court: WFCA does not create leave entitlement separate from CBA; it conditions its protection on CBA entitlement, favoring preemption |
| Proper forum for resolution | Masserant: State administrative process and courts may decide WFCA claim | Alaska Airlines: RLA’s mandatory arbitral mechanism (internal grievance → Adjustment Board) is exclusive for minor disputes | Held: Court: RLA grievance/Adjustment Board procedures are the appropriate forum; reverse district court and remand for CBA process |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (establishes broad federal preemption in labor-contract area to avoid conflicting state interpretations)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (state-law claim preempted when resolution is "inextricably intertwined" with CBA terms)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (recognized limits on preemption for independent state-law rights)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (state-law claims not preempted when they are independent and can be resolved without interpreting the CBA)
- Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (RLA does not preempt state-law claims that are independently created by state law and resolvable without CBA interpretation)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (two-step test: whether right exists solely from the CBA and whether resolution is substantially dependent on CBA analysis)
- Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing claims that require only calendar or unambiguous CBA consultation from those requiring CBA interpretation)