Michael Emswiler v. CSX Transportation Inc., 691 F.3d 782

Emswiler sued CSX and BLET after his seniority date for engine-service was adjusted in May 2009.
RLA governs major and minor disputes; this is a minor dispute about interpretation of the CBA and seniority.
The 1955 CBA set forth how seniority dates are established and protested; the 2007 CBA added a policy for ill trainees to retain seniority if they return promptly.
Emswiler previously had a May 1980 seniority date, remained on the engine roster despite medical disqualification in 1981, and trained as an engineer later.
In 2009, CSX settled to adjust his seniority to April 7, 2008; Emswiler sought restoration to 1980 date but was denied.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants for failure to exhaust RLA remedies and for lack of proof on fair representation; discrimination claim preemption issues were debated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to exhaust RLA remedies barred court jurisdiction	Emswiler asserts futility exceptions render arbitration unnecessary.	Exhaustion is required; jurisdiction is not dependent on exhaustion but merits require arbitration.	Failure to arbitrate precludes merits; jurisdictional effect not required
Whether futility exception to RLA exhaustion applies	Collusion between union and employer would render arbitration futile.	No clear evidence of futility; mere disagreement on CBA interpretation is insufficient.	Futility not established; no excusing of exhaustion
Whether Ohio disability-discrimination claim is preempted by the RLA	Discrimination claim could be adjudicated without dependency on the CBA	Preempted because resolution requires interpretation of the CBA	RLA preempts; claim barred absent arbitration
Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the duty of fair representation claim	BLET breached its duty by how seniority was adjusted	No evidence of CBA violation or bad faith; emails do not show major decisionmakers' bias	Summary judgment upheld; no merit to fair representation claim

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (clarified nonjurisdictional nature of some requirements via bright-line test)
Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Com. of Adjustment, Cen. Reg., 130 S. Ct. 584 (S. Ct. 2009) (RLA preemption of pre-arbitration requirements not jurisdictional)
Glover v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1969) (futility exception permits bypassing arbitration when union-manager collusion is alleged)
Kaschak v. Consol. Rail Corp., 707 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1983) (limits futility exception; high burden on plaintiff)
Nemitz v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 436 F.2d 841 (6th Cir. 1971) (excused arbitration where union refused remedy in Nemitz is inapposite here)
Atkins v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 819 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1987) (illustrates futility analysis in union-grievance contexts)
DeCoe v. Gen. Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 212 (6th Cir. 1994) (two-step preemption framework for state-law claims arising under CBA)
Norris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 512 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1994) (RLA preempts state-law claims when resolution depends on CBA interpretation)
Hoogerheide v. I.R.S., 637 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2011) (Arbaugh framework applied to exhaustion as nonjurisdictional to merits)