Carl Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc.
913 F.3d 1146
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Curtis and another) worked 12-hour-on/12-hour-off shifts on oil platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf and were union members covered by two CBAs between Irwin and the Union.
- Plaintiffs sued in state court alleging California wage-and-hour violations: unpaid overtime for the 12 off-duty hours, missed meal/rest breaks, and minimum wage violations for off-duty time; also asserted derivative claims (pay stub, UCL, final pay, PAGA).
- Irwin removed to federal court invoking LMRA § 301 preemption and OCSLA; the district court dismissed under § 301 and initially ordered arbitration (later retracted), then Curtis appealed.
- Central factual/legal dispute: whether California overtime, meal/rest, and minimum wage protections apply to plaintiffs given the CBAs and the Outer Continental Shelf setting.
- Court of Appeals held plaintiffs’ overtime claim is § 301–preempted because the CBAs satisfy Cal. Lab. Code § 514 so overtime rights arise solely from the CBAs; remanded remaining claims (meal/rest, minimum wage, and derivative claims) for further district-court consideration of § 301 and OCSLA issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 301 preempts plaintiffs’ overtime claim | Curtis: Section 510 creates a nonnegotiable state right to overtime for off-duty hours; CBA does not control because it defines overtime differently | Irwin: Section 514 exempts employees covered by qualifying CBAs from § 510; overtime rights derive from the CBA | Held: Preempted — CBAs meet § 514, so overtime rights exist solely under the CBAs and are § 301–preempted |
| Whether plaintiffs’ meal and rest break claims are § 301–preempted | Curtis: Meal/rest rights are nonnegotiable state-law rights independent of CBAs | Irwin: Wage Order and CBA interaction mean these claims substantially depend on CBA analysis and thus are preempted | Held: Not decided on merits; remanded to district court to analyze § 301, Wage Order interaction, and state-law issues in the first instance |
| Whether plaintiffs’ minimum wage claim for off-duty hours survives preemption/OCSLA on the OCS | Curtis: Mendiola supports treating off-duty hours as hours worked; California law applies on the OCS under OCSLA | Irwin: Resolution requires CBA analysis; OCSLA/LMRA consistency questions remain | Held: Not decided on merits; remanded for district court to address § 301 and OCSLA applicability |
| Whether derivative claims (pay stub, final pay, UCL, PAGA) survive | Curtis: Derivative on primary state-law wage claims, so should proceed if primary claims survive | Irwin: If primary claims are preempted or inapplicable on the OCS, derivative claims fail | Held: Remanded so district court can resolve derivative claims after deciding primary-law and preemption/OCSLA issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (discusses § 301 federal common-law preemption of state-law contract claims)
- Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (establishes § 301 federal-law uniformity rationale)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (describes § 301’s extraordinary preemptive power for removal)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (limits § 301 preemption to avoid displacement of nonnegotiable state-law rights)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (explains arbitration/grievance role and CBA-created common law)
- United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (collective bargaining’s role in creating industry-specific common law)
- Schurke (Alaska Airlines) v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. en banc) (articulates two-step § 301 preemption test used here)
- Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (applies step-one § 301 test: rights that exist solely by virtue of a CBA are preempted)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (discusses when state-law claims require § 301 resolution)
- Gregory v. SCIE, LLC, 317 F.3d 1050 (earlier Ninth Circuit decision on CBA/exemption that the panel concluded was superseded by California authority)
- Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., 881 F.3d 1078 (applies OCSLA to California wage-and-hour rules on the OCS; remanded some issues)