United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Organization United for Respect at Walmart, North Texas Jobs With Justice, and Lester Eugene Lantz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal-Mart Realty Company, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, and Sam's East, Inc.
02-15-00374-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- UFCW, OUR, North Texas Jobs, and director Lantz organized repeated demonstrations at Walmart and Sam’s Club locations (2011–2013) including in-store disruptions, parking‑lot protests, "video bombs," flash mobs, loud chanting, and blocking ingress/egress. Walmart warned the groups not to conduct labor-related activities on its property and posted no‑trespass / no‑solicitation signs.
- Walmart filed an NLRB charge alleging coercion of employees; later amended the charge and ultimately withdrew it after no action by the NLRB.
- Walmart sued the labor organizations in Texas state court for trespass, private and public nuisance, declaratory relief, and sought a permanent injunction (no monetary damages except attorneys’ fees requested).
- Trial court granted Walmart summary judgment on trespass and nuisance and entered a broad permanent injunction prohibiting the labor organizations and related nonemployees from entering Walmart property for non‑shopping purposes and from various protest activities.
- Labor organizations appealed asserting NLRA preemption, arguing insufficient property rights for trespass on common areas, challenging nuisance proof (no objectively unreasonable interference or special public‑nuisance injury), and contending the injunction was overbroad for barring all non‑shopping entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walmart) | Defendant's Argument (labor orgs.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption by the NLRA | State tort claims based on location of conduct are not preempted; NLRB matters involve coercion/employee rights, not property rights | The state claims mirror issues raised before the NLRB and are therefore completely preempted by the Act | Not preempted — state trespass/nuisance claims focused on property/location, so they do not realistically conflict with NLRB jurisdiction |
| Trespass on areas subject to nonexclusive easements | Walmart has exclusive possession/control of the properties covered by the injunction and proved unauthorized entry | Labor orgs. say common areas are subject to nonexclusive easements so mere presence cannot support trespass; at most need unreasonable interference | Affirmed — undisputed evidence showed Walmart’s exclusive control over the enjoined properties and unauthorized entries sufficed for trespass |
| Private and public nuisance | Demonstrations objectively and substantially interfered with Walmart’s use/enjoyment (blocked ingress/egress, noise, customer loss); public‑nuisance interference with travel specially harmed Walmart’s business | No evidence of objectively unreasonable interference; public‑nuisance claim lacks special injury distinct from the public | Affirmed — undisputed facts established objectively unreasonable interference for private nuisance; Walmart showed special injury as adjacent landowner for public nuisance |
| Scope of permanent injunction (ban on all non‑shopping entry) | Walmart sought to bar non‑shopping, labor‑related activities; injunction necessary to prevent repetition of trespass/nuisance | Overbroad: bars lawful, non‑labor activities (e.g., applying for jobs) and exceeds pleaded relief | Modified and affirmed — injunction sustained but paragraph (c) narrowed to prohibit entry for non‑shopping, labor‑related purposes only |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (state torts based on location of conduct may be adjudicated without displacing NLRB jurisdiction)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983) (clarifies limits of state adjudication where federal labor law governs unfair labor practices)
- Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) (Act confers rights to employees, employers may exclude nonemployee organizers from private property)
- Radcliffe v. Rainbow Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses interplay between state tort claims and NLRA preemption)
- Windfield v. Groen Division, Dover Corp., 890 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1989) (preemption principles in labor‑law context)
- Environmental Processing Sys., L.C. v. FPL Farming Ltd., 457 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. 2015) (trespass principles under Texas law)
- Holubec v. Brandenberger, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2003) (nuisance requires substantial, objectively unreasonable interference)