Powell v. Union Pacific Railroad
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45667
| E.D. Cal. | 2012Background
- Powell sues Union Pacific (UP) and related individuals over his 2007 injury and UP’s subsequent actions, including a 2008 video-based investigation and dismissal; Papworth is Powell’s UP supervisor involved in the June 8, 2008 call; Kline is a UP officer who allegedly participated in or influenced the eavesdropping and investigation; Powell filed a FELA, Railway Safety Act, wrongful termination, and privacy (Penal Code § 631) claims; UP removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment; Papworth moves for summary judgment on eavesdropping; the court scheduled briefing on privilege and damages; Powell alleges eavesdropping, public-policy wrongful termination, and related damages; the court grants Papworth’s motion and parts of Powell’s and Papworth’s claims, denies UP’s motion in full, and directs further briefing on privilege scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Papworth can be liable under § 631(a) for eavesdropping | Powell argues Papworth aided eavesdropping | Papworth is a participant, not a third party | Papworth's summary judgment granted (§ 631(a) applies to third parties; participant liability rejected) |
| Whether the eavesdropping claim is preempted by federal law | State privacy claim survives independent of CBA | FRSA/wiretap preemption applies | Initial ruling on admissibility/damages deferred; limited preemption discussion to damages scope; later scope to be briefed (pending privilege) |
| Whether Powell's wrongful termination claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act | Rights arise from state public policy, not the CBA | Claim preempted if requires CBA interpretation | Not preempted; state-law public policy claim survives; pretext evaluation discussed but not fully resolved |
| Whether Powell’s FELA claim is preempted by FRSA or FRSA preemption standards apply | FELA claim should not be displaced by FRSA standards | FRSA preempts state tort claims where applicable | UP’s preemption-based adjudication denied; FELA claim remains at issue; FRSA preemption analysis unresolved |
| Whether UP/Kline defenses (e.g., failure to state a claim, laches, estoppel, exhaustion) are appropriate for summary adjudication | Defenses should be narrowed or denied due to factual disputes | Certain defenses dispositive; some require record | Several affirmative defenses granted or denied; some defenses left for later briefing; estoppel and some others granted; exhaustion and others unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal.3d 355 (Cal. 1985) (section 631 third-party focus; privacy of communications)
- Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal.App.3d 805 (Cal. App. 1979) (section 631 applies to third parties, not participant eavesdropping)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (litigation privilege broader than mere proceedings; covers preparation)
- Moore v. Conliffe, 7 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1994) (litigation privilege in contractual arbitration contexts)
- Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Intl., Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93 (Cal. 1998) (Cotran analysis not required for Tameny wrongful termination)
- Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 1992) (public policy discharge claim; general framework)
- Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1994) (RLA preemption framework; major vs minor disputes)
- Conrail v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 491 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1989) (minor disputes and contract interpretation limits)
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 21 Cal.3d 167 (Cal. 1980) (public policy discharge doctrine (Tameny))
- Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 60 F.3d 1419 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-preempted state claims based on public policy)
- Lane v. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (FRSA preemption of state tort claims (cited by circuits))
- Waymire v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2000) (FRSA preemption considerations)