Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,No. 98-55657,N,No. 98-56154,DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,98-55657,98-56154 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) LLOYD W. CRAMER; DANIEL E. LIPICH,, v. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS INC.,GUILLERMO ALFARO, PLAINTIFF, AND DENNIS R. BLEVINS; RAY R. CASIO; STEVE CUNNINGHAM; RICK DEWOODY; ALEJANDRO GARCIA; DAVID V. GARCIA; RAUL C. GARCIA; JAMES A. GRECO; BRUCE A. HARVEY; JOHN K. HATFIELD; ROBERT W. HATFIELD; LEE A. INGRAM; ZENO KING, JR.; JOHN L. LACROIX; GREGORY A. LANDAVAZO; MELVIN LEO LEWIS; ENRIQUE LOPEZ; HERBERT MARCUS; IGNACIO V. OCHOA; BRIAN K. PAGNE; MANUEL PARRA; JAMES A. PROITTE; CARLOS RIVERA; HAROLD JAMES TAYLOR, JR.; THOMAS A. SCOTT; DAVID W. STEPHENS; J.B. STEWART; ALFONSO WAGNER; LARRY A. WELLS; ROBERT P. WILLIAMS; ERIC J. WRIGHT; WILLIAM A. YESFORD; MIGUEL ABARAJAS; SANDRA RAY AMBROSE; GUILLERMO AMESOLA; ABELARDO APUAN; MICHAEL VINCENT ARBANAS; CARLOS ARGANDORA; JOSE ABRIERO; MARCARIO ACELLANO; FERNANDO AVILA; MICHAEL E. BANNAN; ARNOLD A. BARAJAS; ROBERT BARRAS; MIKE BARTLEY; DAVID BARTON; JAN K. BEBER; WILLIAM OTIS BEGGS; CRAIG ANTHONY BERLENE; PAUL EUGENE BOATWRIGHT; BRIGIDO BOLIVAR; RAYMOND BONIA; RICHARD BOON; ROGER J. BRASS; GARY BROOKS; MICHAEL D. BROWN; JOANNE BRUMMER; SCOTT BUBIER; EDUARDO S. CARDENAS; MANUEL CARDONA; MARIO CARILLO; HARRIS A. CARTER; RICHARD CENICEROS; JACK CLARK; KENNETH L. CLARK; FERNANDO A. CLAVIJO; ROBERT L. CLINTON; RICHARD CONTRERAS; RANCE D. COOPER; ANTHONY CORDERO; ARMANDO CORDERO; JOHN L. CORDERO; RUDY H. COUTHART; CHARLES DAVIDSON, II; THOMAS DERSGHY; PHILIP DIGENOVA; CHARLES DIRNER; JIMMY DIXON; AL DORAME; EDDIE SHEPHERD; CLIFFORD J. FELTON; MIKE FITZGERALD; JOSE LUIS FLORES; RAFAEL O. FLORES; ED FOOR; JERRY FRANCE; ALBERT ALEX FRANCO; RAMON B. FRANCO; MICHAEL GAMBINO; ANTHONY GAPDORA; ROBER T. GARCIA; DONALD K. GLOVER; DAVID P. GOMEZ; MANUEL E. GONZALES; GERALD W. GOODWIN; DEVIN JONATHAN GORDON; JONATHAN J. GORDON; JERRY GOFORTH; BERNAL GREGETZ; JOSE GUTIERREZ; JESSE D. HALEY; JAMES HARPER, JR.; SANDRA HEATLEY; PATRICK L. HERON, JR.; RANDALL WILLIAM HOBBS; NARVELL E. HOOKS; STEVE HOPKINS; TIM HOSEA; GAYLE LYNN HAMPTON; |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Jay Cordell Horton, Malena R. Leclair and Susan Ghormley, Horton, Barbaro & Reilly, Santa Ana, California, for plaintiffs-appellants Cramer et al., and Matthew L. Taylor and Michael D. Myers, Myers, Taylor & Siegel, Claremont, California, for plaintiffs-appellants Alfaro et al. and Hoffman et al.
Louise Ann Fernandez, Robert E. Mangels, Marc Marmaro, and Neil O. Andrus, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, Los Angeles, California, and William A. Norris and Edward P. Lazarus, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Los Angeles, California, for the defendants-appellees.
Opinion by Judge Fisher; Concurrence by Judge Tallman; Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain
This appeal requires us to decide whether a plaintiff's state law privacy claim, based on California's penal code, is preempted under §§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 185. Resolution of this issue, in turn, leads us to clarify our Circuit's approach to §§ 301 preemption. We hold that because plaintiffs' privacy claims are not even arguably covered by the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"), the claims are independent of the CBA and thus are not subject to §§ 301 preemption. Moreover, we hold that when an employer's surreptitious surveillance constitutes a per se violation of established state privacy laws, the employees affected thereby may bring an action for invasion of privacy regardless of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement governing their employment.
Consolidated Freightways ("Consolidated"), the defendant in this action, is a large trucking company.1 It concealed video cameras and audio listening devices behind two-way mirrors in the restrooms at its terminal in Mira Loma, California, ostensibly to detect and prevent drug use by its drivers. Employees at the terminal discovered the surveillance equipment when a mirror fell off the men's restroom wall, exposing a camera with a wire leading out through a hole in the wall behind it. Subsequent investigation revealed a similar hole in the wall behind the mirror in the adjoining women's restroom.
Under California Penal Code §§ 653n, "[a]ny person who installs or who maintains . . . any two-way mirror permitting observation of any restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower, locker room, fitting room, motel room, or hotel room, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Thus, Consolidated's installation of the two-way mirror was a direct violation of California criminal law.
Soon after discovery of the camera, truck driver Lloyd Cramer, an employee at the Mira Loma terminal, brought a class action suit in state court alleging invasion of privacy on behalf of all "individuals lawfully on the premises . . . who had a reasonable expectation of privacy while using[Consolidated's] restrooms." Guillermo Alfaro, another Consolidated employee, and 281 others brought a separate suit seeking damages for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. They also sought injunctive relief to end the use of the surveillance devices.
Consolidated removed both cases to federal court, contending that plaintiffs' state claims were preempted under §§ 301 of the LMRA because the claims required interpretation of the CBA between Consolidated and its employees' union to determine the employees' reasonable expectations of privacy. The cases were consolidated in the district court (as they have been for purposes of appeal).
Consolidated then moved to dismiss both cases, arguing that they were preempted by §§ 301. Cramer moved for class certification, and Alfaro, joined by Cramer, filed a motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied Alfaro and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Garda CL Nw., Inc.
...301 preemption is not mandated simply because the defendant refers to the CBA in mounting a defense." Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2001)(en banc) . ¶55 Section 301 does not "preempt nonnegotiable or independent negotiable claims." Commodore v. Univ. Mech......
-
McNall v. CREDIT BUREAU OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY
...Schlacter-Jones v. Gen. Tel. of Cal., 936 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1991), overruled on another ground by Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.2001). In addition to the untimeliness of plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, amendment of the complaint would be futile b......
-
Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc.
...and those that survive § 301's reach is not ... a line that lends itself to analytical precision." Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The Ninth Circuit has articulated a two-prong inquiry to analyze whether section 301 preemption applies.......
-
Wadsworth v. KSL Grant Wailea Resort, Inc.
...claims and those that survive § 301's reach is not ... a line that lends itself to analytical precision.” Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir.2001). Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit has established guidelines to aid in this process based upon the Supreme Cour......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...analyze the CBA” and the terms of the bargained-for drug testing policy). The Ninth Circuit in Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001), however, observing that its prior precedent “suggested that the preemptive force of §301 was so strong that preemption......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...analyze the CBA” and the terms of the bargained-for drug testing policy). The Ninth Circuit in Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001), however, observing that its prior precedent “suggested that the preemptive force of §301 was so strong that preemption......
-
Privacy issues in the workplace
...analyze the CBA” and the terms of the bargained-for drug testing policy). The Ninth Circuit in Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001), however, observing that its prior precedent “suggested that the preemptive force of §301 was so strong that preemption......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...analyze the CBA” and the terms of the bargained-for drug testing policy). The Ninth Circuit in Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. , 255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001), however, observing that its prior precedent “suggested that the preemptive force of §301 was so strong that preemption......