Snyder v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.
837 F. Supp. 2d 428
D.N.J.2011Background
- Plaintiff Richard Snyder alleges wage deductions by Dietz & Watson, paid into an escrow-like mechanism, with shortages allegedly covered by these withholdings.
- CBA between Dietz & Watson and Local No. 463 governs Snyder’s terms, including wage schedules and grievance procedures.
- In 2009 Snyder allegedly complained about deductions and alleges retaliation through termination; final pay period allegedly paid one penny.
- Plaintiff asserts multiple claims (RICO, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, NJWPL, FLSA, NJWHL, and retaliatory discharge).
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing (i) failure to exhaust CBA grievance procedures, (ii) LMRA/NLRA preemption, and (iii) failure to state RICO and FLSA claims.
- Court records indicate the CBA’s Article 3 (dispute resolution) and Article 9 (wage obligations) are central to many asserted theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of arbitration clause | Arbitration clause not broad enough to preclude statutory claims. | General arbitration clause requires arbitration of all disputes. | Arbitration clause not broad enough to mandate arbitration of all claims. |
| Breach of contract claim exhaustion | Breach arises from CBA terms; no explicit exhaustion requirement discussed. | Contract claims must exhaust CBA grievance procedures. | Count V dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust CBA grievance procedures. |
| Preemption of fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fiduciary-duty claims | State-law claims independent of the CBA; not preempted. | Claims depend on wage-deduction rights under the CBA and are preempted. | Fraud and conversion preempted; unjust enrichment preempted; fiduciary-duty claim dismissed (some aspects with prejudice). |
| NJWPL claim not preempted; FLSA claim independence | NJWPL and FLSA rights exist independently of the CBA. | Wage deductions tied to CBA may preempt state-law claims. | NJWPL claim not preempted; FLSA claim not preempted; both require factual determinations without contract interpretation. |
| RICO preemption | RICO predicates based on wage-skimming and misrepresentation not solely tied to the CBA. | RICO predicated on wage issues implicates federal labor law; preempted. | RICO claims not preempted; however, dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead a concrete pattern of racketeering with particularized fraud specifics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1988) (uniform federal interpretation of labor contracts; not all claims preempted)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1985) (Congressional intent to create federal labor-law uniformity; preemption when contract interpretation is necessary)
- Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1962) (uniform interpretation of CBAs; final arbitral or judicial resolution of disputes)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (exhaustion of grievance procedures before court, unless the clause is not susceptible to coverage)
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1998) (ADA claims require clear and unmistakable arbitration waiver; general clause insufficient)
- Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 614 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2010) (state wage laws cannot be waived by CBA where not authorized by state law; preemption depends on interpretation)
- Antol v. Esposto, 100 F.3d 1111 (3d Cir. 1996) (Pennsylvania Wage Law preemption concerns; distinct from NJ context)
- City Disposal Sys., Inc. v. Bd. of Trade, 465 U.S. 822 (U.S. 1984) (concerted activity framework under NLRA; individual actions can be protected if grounded in CBA rights)
- Gordon v. Kaleida Health, 2008 WL 5114217 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (FLSA rights independent of CBA; minimum wage and overtime trump contract terms)