Pia v. URS Energy & Construction, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 999

Plaintiff Marc Pia, a union laborer on an Iowa construction site, alleged he repeatedly raised workplace safety concerns to supervisors and attended daily safety meetings.
Supervisors allegedly threatened termination if Pia continued to raise safety issues; he was terminated March 2, 2015 for alleged willful/gross negligence regarding safety rules.
Pia sued in federal court (diversity jurisdiction) under Iowa common-law wrongful discharge for reasons contrary to public policy, relying on Iowa OSHA policy and precedents.
Defendants (URS and AECOM) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the NLRA preempts the state tort claim (Garmon preemption) because the conduct was arguably protected/concerted under NLRA §§ 7–8.
The court assumed arguendo that the conduct was arguably protected by the NLRA but analyzed whether the Garmon exception for matters "deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility" applies.
The court denied the motion, finding Iowa’s interest in workplace safety substantial and the risk of interfering with NLRB jurisdiction minimal as to many of Pia’s remedies (e.g., emotional distress, reputational harms) that the Board cannot award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NLRA (Garmon) preempts Iowa wrongful-discharge claim for retaliation after raising safety concerns	Pia argues state wrongful-discharge claim should proceed because protecting workplace safety is a local interest and many requested damages (emotional distress, reputational harm) are outside NLRB relief	Defendants argue the conduct was arguably protected concerted activity under NLRA §§7–8, so state tort law is preempted and the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction	Court held claim not preempted under Garmon exception: Iowa has substantial interest in workplace safety and interference risk with NLRB is low for remedies beyond Board power; denied motion to dismiss
Whether existence of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) makes Garmon preemption unavoidable	Pia: CBA should not bar state tort where similar nonunion employees would retain state-law remedies	Defendants: CBA provisions make safety a bargained-for right and trigger federal preemption	Court indicated CBA cannot be used to create a preemption result that would deny union employees remedies available to nonunion employees; did not rely on CBA to preempt claim

Garmon v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (establishes NLRA preemption where conduct is arguably protected or prohibited by NLRA §§7–8)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (applies local-feeling exception to permit state tort regulation like trespass)
Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977) (state tort for emotional distress not preempted where Board cannot award such relief)
Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) (defamation action outside Board’s remedial scope and not preempted)
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983) (state regulation presumptively preempted if conduct is actually or arguably protected/prohibited by NLRA)
Platt v. Jack Cooper Transp. Co., 959 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1992) (identifies factors increasing preemption risk, including prior NLRB proceedings)
Jasper v. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 2009) (Iowa recognizes wrongful discharge for reasons contrary to public policy)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (states retain police-power authority to protect health and safety; federal law not intended to displace unrelated state labor standards)