United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2017 Md. LEXIS 404
Md.2017Background
- UFCW organized coordinated in-store and parking-lot demonstrations ("flash mobs") at multiple Maryland Walmart stores between 2011–2013, disrupting customers and store operations; demonstrators refused Walmart managers' repeated requests to leave and were removed by police.
- Walmart sued in Anne Arundel County for trespass and public/private nuisance, sought injunctive relief; sought preliminary and permanent injunctions restricting demonstrators from entering Walmart private property for non-shopping purposes.
- UFCW filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB (later narrowed) and moved to dismiss Walmart’s state claims, arguing NLRA preemption; circuit court denied dismissal and granted injunctions; Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Key legal question: whether Walmart’s state-law trespass and nuisance claims are preempted by the NLRA under the Garmon/Sears framework and whether Maryland’s Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) applied to bar the injunction absent statutory procedures.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed: held the "local interest" exception to NLRA preemption applies (protecting private property), and the AIA did not apply because UFCW did not represent or seek to represent Walmart employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (UFCW) | Defendant's Argument (Walmart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walmart’s trespass/nuisance claims are preempted by the NLRA | Walmart’s claims arise from conduct that is arguably prohibited by §8 NLRA, so state claims are preempted | Private property protection is a significant local interest; controversies before state court (trespass/nuisance) differ legally from NLRB unfair labor claims | Not preempted — local interest exception applies because protecting private property is significant and state controversies differ from NLRB issues |
| Proper analytic focus for preemption: facts vs. legal controversies | Compare underlying conduct to NLRB claims; factual overlap indicates preemption | Compare legal controversies/elements and remedies presented to each forum, not merely the underlying facts | Compare controversies/legal elements; courts should compare issues and remedies, not only factual overlap |
| Whether peaceful trespass qualifies for the local-interest exception | Local-interest exception limited to violent/malicious conduct; trespass without violence not sufficient | Sears establishes that preventing peaceful trespass is a deeply rooted state interest warranting the exception | Peaceful trespass and protection of private property qualify as a significant state interest under the local-interest exception |
| Whether Maryland’s Anti-Injunction Act bars the injunction | AIA applies because demonstrations relate to terms/conditions of employment (labor dispute), triggering heightened injunction requirements | UFCW did not represent nor seek to represent Walmart employees; demonstrations were by outsiders/activists, so AIA does not apply | AIA does not apply — case does not "involve or grow out of a labor dispute" because UFCW did not represent Walmart employees or seek representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (establishes local-interest exception to NLRA preemption and compares controversies presented to state court vs. NLRB)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983) (applies Sears framework; state-law misrepresentation claims not preempted when NLRB controversy differs)
- Brown v. Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int’l Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491 (1984) (confirms that deeply rooted local interests can justify nonpreemption)
- Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776, 346 U.S. 485 (1953) (discusses exclusive NLRB jurisdiction and risks of state interference)
- Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684 (1992) (Maryland discussion of federal preemption principles and deference to NLRB jurisdiction)