261 P.3d 592
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Humphries sues Pay and Save, Inc. and Tim Cotton for six state-law counts rooted in alleged union-organizing termination.
- He was a produce manager at Lowe’s Grocery #55 in Alamogordo, NM for about five years and was terminated February 23, 2006.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing NLRA preemption and exclusive NLRB jurisdiction over alleged unfair labor practices.
- District court granted dismissal on preemption grounds, treating the termination as a federal issue tied to union activity.
- On appeal, the court held all claims are preempted under Garmon/Beasley/Machinists regardless of employee/supervisor status and that §301 LMRA does not save the claims; dismissal was without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the claims as preempted. | Humphries argues no preemption because no CBA and state claims remain viable. | Defendants contend NLRA preemption applies via Garmon, Beasley, Machinists. | Preemption applies; claims dismissed. |
| Whether §301 LMRA preemption applies to the claims. | Section 301 does not preempt since no CBA interpretation is required. | §301 preempts when interpretation of a CBA is needed. | §301 does not preempt; other preemption theories apply. |
| Whether the claims could be severed and proceeded in state court separately. | Unaffected state-law claims could proceed if preemption did not bar them. | All counts arise from a single union-termination core and are preempted. | No severability; all counts preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garmon v. fused Local 519, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (NLRA Sections 7–8 preemption when activity is arguably subject to NLRA)
- Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina, Inc., 416 U.S. 653 (1974) (Supersedes NLRA protections for supervisors; states cannot regulate supervisor-level anti-union actions)
- Machinists v. Wisconsin Employ. Relations Comm., 427 U.S. 132 (1976) (Some labor practices outside NLRA preempted to preserve national labor policy)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (§301 preemption when a state claim requires interpretation of a CBA)
- Weise v. Washington Tru Solutions, L.L.C., 2008 NMCA 121, 144 P.3d 1244 (NM Court of Appeals 2008) (NM preemption analysis under NLRA and LMRA; three types of preemption)
- Kerschion v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M., 2002-NMCA-045, 132 P.3d 59 (NM Court of Appeals 2002) (Section 301 preemption discussed in NM context)