Scott Wolfe v. Bnsf Railway Company
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7611
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wolfe, a long-time BNSF employee, was assigned a known poor-condition hi-rail truck and received only limited, informal instruction on the truck’s Hi-rail Limits Compliance System (HLCS).
- On December 18, 2008, a dispatcher misheard Wolfe’s request for authority and entered westbound authority in HLCS while Wolfe proceeded east; Wolfe encountered a head-on freight train, escaped injury, and the truck was damaged.
- BNSF conducted investigations under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA), suspended Wolfe 30 days for HLCS failure, and dismissed him for lack of main track authority.
- The Union grieved; the National Railroad Adjustment Board (and a special board) upheld the HLCS violation, reduced dismissal to long-term suspension, reinstated seniority, and denied backpay.
- Wolfe sued in Montana court under MCA § 39-2-703 (railroad negligent mismanagement), alleging: (1) negligent mismanagement caused the collision; and (2) mismanagement of the investigation/discipline. BNSF removed and moved for summary judgment asserting RLA preemption.
- The district court granted summary judgment on preemption grounds; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed preemption of the claim challenging CBA-governed discipline but reversed as to the negligent-mismanagement claim arising from the collision and reinstated punitive damages, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wolfe’s negligent-mismanagement claim (leading to the collision) is preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) as a minor dispute | Wolfe: His MCA § 39-2-703 claim arises from state-law duties independent of the CBA (failure to train, defective equipment, dispatcher negligence) | BNSF: The injury (loss of job) flowed from CBA disciplinary/arbitration procedures, so resolution requires interpreting the CBA and is preempted | Not preempted — claim is independent of the CBA and can be resolved without interpreting the CBA; reversed as to this claim |
| Whether Wolfe’s challenge to BNSF’s investigation and disciplinary proceedings is preempted | Wolfe conceded this claim was subject to the CBA grievance/arbitration process | BNSF: CBA procedures govern and preempt state-law review | Preempted — affirmed (Wolfe conceded) |
| Whether the fact that termination flowed from CBA proceedings makes the negligent-mismanagement claim preempted | Wolfe: Causation from pre-termination negligence does not make the claim CBA-dependent; state law grants independent right under MCA § 39-2-703 | BNSF: The termination is the injury; since it resulted from CBA procedures, the state claim would require interpreting the CBA | Not preempted — factual causation inquiry is distinct from contractual interpretation; independent state claim allowed |
| Whether punitive damages tied to the negligent-mismanagement claim survive if the underlying claim is reinstated | Wolfe: Punitive damages are derivative and should be reinstated if the underlying claim survives | BNSF: Punitive damages fall with the preempted claim | Reinstated — punitive damages restored because the underlying negligent-mismanagement claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994) (RLA distinguishes major vs. minor disputes; state claims preempted when dependent on CBA interpretation)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (state-law claim not preempted if it can be resolved without interpreting a CBA)
- Winslow v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 121 P.3d 506 (Mont. 2005) (Montana’s MCA § 39-2-703 permits independent negligent-mismanagement claims against railroads)
- Wharf v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 60 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 1995) (employer negligence claims are not preempted by the RLA when rights are independent of the CBA)
- Fennessy v. Southwest Airlines, 91 F.3d 1359 (9th Cir. 1996) (employee may pursue independent statutory claim after Adjustment Board decision; Board’s determination binding only on what it decided)