Lewis v. Whirlpool Corp.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 593
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Timothy Lewis, a Whirlpool supervisor at Marion, Ohio, was employed 1977–2007 and faced unionizing activity at Whirlpool's facility.
- In 2004 unionizing efforts began; Lewis reportedly refused a directive to terminate two organizing employees.
- Lewis was transferred within the plant in 2005 and allegedly harassed by a new manager until his 2007 termination for 'badging an employee'.
- Whirlpool alleged Lewis badged an employee; Lewis denied the allegations and contends the real reason was opposition to union activity.
- After termination, Lewis filed an NLRA charge; the NLRB later indicated the charge was meritless but Lewis withdrew the charge.
- Lewis filed suit in Ohio state court alleging wrongful termination in violation of Ohio public policy, later removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is preempted by the NLRA | Lewis: not an employee under NLRA; claim not preempted | Whirlpool: claim preempted as 'arguably subject' to NLRA | Preempted; Garmon applies |
| Whether supervisor status excludes NLRA protection in this context | Lewis: supervisor status removes NLRA applicability | Whirlpool: supervisors can be disciplined for refusing to commit unfair labor practices | NLRA exception for supervisors applies; claim preempted |
| Whether the NLRB's conclusions foreclose due process concerns | Lewis: due process defect if preemption blocks remedy | NLRB process available; no due process violation | Procedural due process claim rejected; due process satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (states defer to NLRB where activity is protected or an unfair labor practice)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (identical state and Board claims require Board jurisdiction)
- Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669 (1983) (Board jurisdiction when regional director's letter addresses merits, not jurisdiction)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Bush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (protected property interest; due process considerations)
- Farhat v. Jopke, 370 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2004) (availability of administrative remedies can satisfy due process)
- Chavez v. Copper State Rubber of Ariz., Inc., 897 P.2d 725 (195) (due process and administrative remedy considerations (as cited) )