Theressa Shields v. Andeavor Logistics LP
2:19-cv-04995
C.D. Cal.Jul 31, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Theressa Shields sued multiple defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging FEHA claims (disability, sex, race discrimination), failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Section 301 of the LMRA (29 U.S.C. § 185) purportedly preempts the state-law claims by requiring interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The central legal question was whether resolution of Shields’ state-law claims would require interpreting terms of the CBA, thereby triggering Section 301 preemption.
- The court applied Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court preemption principles: state-law claims are preempted only when their adjudication necessarily requires interpretation of a CBA; mere reference or peripheral relevance to a CBA is insufficient.
- The court examined each claim (FEHA claims, wrongful termination/public policy, and Labor Code § 1102.5) and determined they involve fact-specific inquiries into employer motive, accommodation options, and interactive-process conduct that do not require interpreting CBA terms.
- Conclusion: the court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand and returned the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEHA discrimination (disability, sex, race) claims are preempted by §301 LMRA | Shields: FEHA claims are independent state-law rights and can be resolved by examining employer motive without interpreting the CBA | Defendants: resolving discrimination claims may require interpreting CBA provisions (e.g., just-cause or hiring rules) | Court: Not preempted — requires factual inquiry into motive, not CBA interpretation |
| Whether FEHA reasonable accommodation and interactive-process claims are preempted | Shields: FEHA requires considering any reasonable accommodation, not limited to CBA options; CBA is at most peripherally relevant | Defendants: accommodation/selection issues implicate CBA terms (selection guidelines, alternate positions) | Court: Not preempted — possible reference to CBA only; no need to interpret its terms |
| Whether FEHA retaliation and failure-to-prevent claims are preempted | Shields: Retaliation and failure-to-prevent are fact-based and independent of CBA terms | Defendants: Defenses will rely on CBA-based reasons for termination/discipline | Court: Not preempted — these claims focus on employer motivation and do not turn on CBA meaning |
| Whether Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower) claim or pending grievance exhausts remedies requiring CBA interpretation | Shields: §1102.5 protects reporting of statutory violations and adjudication does not require CBA interpretation; grievance status does not convert claim into federal question | Defendants: Plaintiff may have to exhaust grievance procedures or resolution would duplicate CBA grievance matters | Court: Not preempted — §1102.5 claim resolved by examining employer conduct and motive; Lingle controls that parallel grievance does not mandate preemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (Sup. Ct.) (LMRA preemption applies only when resolution requires interpreting a CBA)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (preemption depends on whether claim requires CBA interpretation)
- Cramer v. Consol. Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff’s claim is the touchstone for preemption analysis)
- Humble v. Boeing Co., 305 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.) (defensive reliance on CBA does not trigger §301 preemption)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (Sup. Ct.) (state-law wrongful termination not preempted even with parallel CBA grievance)
- Ramirez v. Fox Tele. Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743 (9th Cir.) (FEHA rights are nonnegotiable and independent of CBA)
- Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co., 873 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir.) (FEHA claims enforced without reference to CBA terms)
- Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233 (9th Cir.) (state-law remedy independent of CBA remedies)
- Detabali v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.) (FEHA discriminatory termination claim not preempted where no dispute over CBA meaning)
- Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638 (9th Cir.) (public-policy wrongful termination premised on anti-discrimination furthers state interest and does not require CBA interpretation)