Silva v. USF Reddaway Inc., 3:17-cv-01354

Silva worked as a local pickup-and-delivery truck driver for USF Reddaway governed by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) that addressed seniority, job assignments, and grievance procedures.
In 2012 Silva experienced recurrent shoulder pain, requested accommodation (transfer to long-distance line driving to avoid heavy freight handling), and went on leave but was not reassigned to line driving by August 2012.
Silva sued in California state court (First Amended Complaint) alleging: breach of the CBA, common-law disability discrimination, and FEHA disability discrimination; he conceded the CBA-breach claim is preempted.
Reddaway removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the remaining discrimination claims as preempted by § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA).
The court considered the CBA (filed by defendant, undisputed authenticity) and concluded Silva’s discrimination claims required substantive interpretation of the CBA terms (assignment and seniority), triggering § 301 preemption.
The court dismissed Silva’s state-law discrimination claims without prejudice to any claim under the CBA or LMRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Silva’s state-law disability/discrimination claims are preempted by § 301 of the LMRA	Silva contends his discrimination and accommodation claims arise under state law (including FEHA) and do not require interpretation of the CBA	Reddaway argues resolution of the claims will require interpretation of CBA provisions on assignment and seniority, so § 301 preempts Silva's state-law claims	Court held § 301 preempts the discrimination claims because resolving them requires substantive interpretation of the CBA (not merely reference)
Whether ancillary misrepresentation allegations avoid preemption	Silva points to alleged misrepresentations about availability of line-driving positions as independent torts	Reddaway says misrepresentation is ancillary to the discrimination claims and, even as a separate claim, would still require assessing duties under the CBA	Court held the misrepresentation allegations do not avoid § 301 preemption because they are tied to CBA duties

Young v. Anthony's Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993 (9th Cir.) (establishes § 301 governs suits alleging breach of a CBA)
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (preemptive scope of § 301 and federal governance of labor-contract disputes)
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (state-law claims preempted when inextricably intertwined with CBA terms)
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (distinguishes consultation from interpretation of CBA in preemption analysis)
Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (uniform federal interpretation of CBAs promotes repose in labor disputes)
Audette v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, 195 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (discrimination claim preempted where resolution requires assessing CBA transfer/assignment terms)
Miller v. AT&T Network Sys., 850 F.2d 543 (9th Cir.) (articulates multi-factor test for § 301 preemption)