Cavallaro v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.
678 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Patricia Cavallaro and Monique Herman alleged wage-related state-law claims against the UMass Memorial Healthcare network and two corporate officials.
- Case No. 11-1073 pleaded Massachusetts Wage Act, overtime, contract/quantum meruit, misrepresentation, and related claims involving meal/rest periods and training time.
- Case No. 11-1793 asserted FLSA minimum wage/overtime and ERISA concerns, with district court raising concerns about identifying a direct employer.
- UMass removed the state-law case asserting complete preemption under LMRA § 301, seeking removal to federal court; some claims were dismissed for lack of CBA exhaustion.
- The First Circuit upheld removal on complete preemption grounds, and addressed defensive preemption and CBA interpretation intertwined with state claims; it affirmed in part and remanded in part.
- Key issue centered on whether non-CBA regulatory/state claims could be preempted or referred to CBA processes and whether the FLSA/ERISA claims could proceed with proper employer identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under complete preemption | Cavallaro/Herman: claims are state-law and not pure federal contract claims. | UMass: LMRA § 301 preempts and permits removal when claims are connected to a CBA. | Removal proper under complete preemption. |
| Whether state-law claims are preempted or defensively preempted by the CBA | Claims can be pursued in state court and are not dependent on CBA interpretation. | Many claims depend on CBA terms and require CBA interpretation, entailing preemption. | Several claims (e.g., money had and received, quantum meruit, conversion) preempted; remaining regulatory claims analyzed under evolving standard. |
| Whether the district court properly declined remand and properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction | Should be remanded to state court since no federal question arises. | Federal question/jurisdiction exists via complete preemption; supplemental jurisdiction appropriate. | Supplemental jurisdiction proper; district court's handling affirmed for the state-law claims via preemption analysis. |
| Whether the FLSA/ERISA claims in No. 11-1793 could proceed after employer identification issues | Amendment should be allowed to identify the direct employer; joint-employer theories may extend liability. | Initial pleading failed to identify the direct employer or to plead properly under joint-employer theories. | One last amendment permitted; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with decision. |
| Whether particular statutory claims (Massachusetts Weekly Wage Act, record-keeping) are preempted by the CBA | Those statutory claims should not be preempted and can be pursued separate from the CBA. | These claims are entwined with CBA interpretation and thus preempted under Adames and related precedents. | Mass. Weekly Wage Act and record-keeping claims preempted under Adames framework; discussed potential revival only if CBA process is used. |
Key Cases Cited
- Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957) (federal common law for CBAs and preemption of state contract claims)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) (complete preemption concept framework)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (extension of complete preemption to rights created by CBAs)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (limits of preemption and integration of S/claims with CBA interpretations)
- Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (preemption scope and interpretation of CBA provisions)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (defensive preemption and non-waivable regulatory claims)
- Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (arbitration waivers for statutory claims must be clear and unmistakable)
- O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (2003) (state regulatory claims in economic area preemption with CBA)
- Adames v. Exec. Airlines, Inc., 258 F.3d 7 (2001) (preemption of regulatory wage claims intertwined with CBA interpretation)
- Haggins v. Verizon New England, Inc., 648 F.3d 50 (2011) (reasonableness of reliance in misrepresentation claims under CBA contexts)