Baker v. Amsted Rail
3:11-cv-00560
| S.D. Ill. | Sep 15, 2011Background
- Baker, a former Amsted employee, alleges on-the-job injury at Amsted’s Granite City facility and retaliatory termination for filing a workers’ compensation claim under IWCA.
- Baker's Illinois law claim is that Amsted fired him in violation of public policy; he sues in state court, originally filed in Madison County Circuit Court.
- Amsted removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on a collective bargaining agreement governing termination rights.
- Removal decisions are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); the defendant bears the burden to show original federal jurisdiction.
- The court analyzes whether the IWCA/retaliatory discharge claim is completely preempted by the LMRA to justify removal.
- The court determines removal is improper, and the case must be remanded to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is removal proper under federal-question/complete preemption? | Baker argues no federal question; LMRA preemption not complete. | Amsted argues LMRA preempts state law and supports removal. | Removal denied; not completely preempted; remand required. |
| Does Section 1445(c) bar removal of IWCA-based retaliatory discharge claims? | Baker’s IWCA-based claim cannot be removed under 1445(c). | LMRA preemption could allow removal despite 1445(c). | Section 1445(c) bars removal; remand proper. |
| Does Illinois retaliatory discharge claim fall outside LMRA preemption? | IWCA-based retaliation claims are state-law public policy claims outside LMRA. | Such claims could be preempted if tied to a CBA under LMRA. | Claims fall outside LMRA preemption; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) (LMRA preemption and federal labor-law framework)
- Nelson v. Stewart, 422 F.3d 463 (7th Cir. 2005) (complete preemption doctrine under LMRA)
- Disher v. Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc., 419 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2005) (removal standard; original jurisdiction requirement)
- Rodkey v. W.R. Grace & Co., 764 F. Supp. 1313 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (Section 1445(c) bars removal for IWCA-based claims)
- Rosell v. Roadway Express, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 681 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (IWCA-based retaliatory discharge not removable)
- Alexander v. Westinghouse Hittman Nuclear Inc., 612 F. Supp. 1118 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (IWCA retaliation claims not preempted by LMRA)
- Lopez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 87 C 1606, 1987 WL 12202 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (retaliatory discharge independent of CBA, outside LMRA preemption)
- Gonzalez v. Prestress Eng’g Corp., 503 N.E.2d 308 (Ill. 1986) (state public policy protects IWCA rights regardless of CBA)