90 F. Supp. 3d 382
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Piotr Nowak, team manager for the Philadelphia Union, was terminated in June 2012.
- Nowak sued Major League Soccer, LLC (MLS) and the Major League Soccer Players Union (MLSPU) for tortious interference with contractual relations.
- MLSPU moved to dismiss the claim against it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on NLRA preemption grounds, which the court granted as to MLSPU.
- The termination followed an MLSPU-ordered investigation conducted by MLS into a disputed training exercise.
- MLSPU and MLS demanded Nowak’s termination after the investigation, and Nowak alleges those demands caused PU to fire him.
- Nowak filed the complaint on June 12, 2014, but MLS has not been served, triggering Rule 4(m) dismissal considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is MLSPU’s claim preempted by the NLRA under Garmon? | Nowak contends preemption does not apply. | MLSPU argues the claim is protected or related to NLRA conduct. | Yes; preempted under Garmon. |
| Do any Garmon preemption exceptions apply here? | Peripherally related conduct may escape preemption. | Conduct is core NLRA activity for mutual aid/protection. | Exceptions do not apply; conduct is protectable by NLRA. |
| Does the NLRA preemption analysis foreclose Nowak’s tort claim against MLSPU? | Not persuasive that the conduct is peripheral or non-NLRA related. | Preemption bars the state-law claim. | Garmon preemption forecloses the claim against MLSPU. |
| What is the effect on MLS given service issues? | MLS should proceed or be treated consistently with service rules. | MLS must be dismissed for failure to serve within 120 days absent good cause. | The MLSPU claim dismissed; MLS may be dismissed without prejudice absent good cause for service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Nurses Ass’n v. Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass’n, 90 F.3d 797 (3d Cir.1996) (Garmon preemption framework for NLRA-protected conduct)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen’s Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (Supreme Court, 1959) (foundation of NLRA preemption doctrine)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court, 1986) (interpretation not plainly contrary to NLRA language)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1983) (peripheral concern exception balancing state interests)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1978) (permitting state tort claims when not implicating federal law)