Coppinger v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., METRO-NORTH

• Citation: 861 F.2d 33
• Decision Date: 03 November 1988
• Docket Number: METRO-NORTH,No. 80,D,80
• Parties: 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2817, 57 USLW 2301, 110 Lab.Cas. P 10,820, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1632 Ronald COPPINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.COMMUTER RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 88-7334.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Page 33

861 F.2d 33

129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2817, 57 USLW 2301,

110 Lab.Cas. P 10,820,

3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1632

Ronald COPPINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO-NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80, Docket 88-7334.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 2, 1988.

Decided Nov. 3, 1988.

Paul T. Hofmann, New York City (Phillips Cappiello Kalban Hofmann & Katz, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Mary Ann Mills, New York City (Karen Timko, Walter E. Zullig, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before CARDAMONE and PRATT, Circuit Judges and TENNEY, District Judge. ^*

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge:

This appeal from a dismissal of plaintiff's complaint presents the single legal issue of whether a district court has jurisdiction to hear a discharged employee's claim for damages and equitable relief in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, even though the discharge has been upheld in compulsory and binding arbitration pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq. (1982) (RLA).

FACTS

On August 22, 1985 appellant Ronald Coppinger was employed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Metro-North) as a trackman. During appellant's lunchbreak in the company locker room at Grand Central Station in New York City, several supervisors entered the area where he and other Metro-North employees were seated and eating, and there observed bottles of liquor in some of the employee lockers and cups on the table at which the employees were seated. Suspecting that Metro-North rules had been violated, the supervisors sent the lunch group to the company medical department where blood and urine samples were taken in the presence of a registered nurse. Although the blood test indicated that appellant had not consumed alcohol, a "confirmed" urinalysis tested positive for the presence of cocaine metabolites, opiates, and THC (marijuana).

As a result, Coppinger was fired. Subsequently, he sought to have his dismissal vacated through arbitration proceedings brought under the RLA. On January 29, 1987 the Public Law Board (Board) upheld Coppinger's dismissal. He then instituted the instant civil rights action in the United Metro-North moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Appellant cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Metro-North's motion and dismissed appellant's complaint, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the Sec. 1983 claims. It ruled that Coppinger's claims fell within the exclusive and primary jurisdiction of the Public Law Board, and that he had failed to establish facts sufficient to warrant judicial review of that Board's decision. The district judge also stated that appellant had failed to allege a valid independent basis for it to assume jurisdiction over his Sec. 1983 civil rights cause of action.

States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Duffy, J.) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982). In his complaint Coppinger alleges that extracting blood and urine infringed on his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The complaint also asserts claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and under Article I, Secs. 6 and 12 of the New York Constitution. In essence, Coppinger contends that the procedures and techniques used by Metro-North to perform the tests denied him due process of law.

We agree with the district court's ruling that appellant had not alleged sufficient facts to justify review of the Board's decision, but cannot agree that appellant's separate and independent constitutional claims cognizable under Sec. 1983 were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

A. Colorable Fourth Amendment Violation Alleged

Because it dismissed plaintiff's complaint, the district court made no findings and did not rule on the legality of Metro-North's blood and urine tests of Coppinger. Appellant challenges those tests in two ways. First, he argues that they were an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under Article I, Section 12 of the New York Constitution. Second, he contends that the tests denied him due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and under Article I, Section 6 of the New York Constitution. In view of the fact that an arguable Fourth Amendment claim has been stated, discussion is limited to "search and seizure," and the due process argument is not addressed.

A number of our sister circuits have held that compulsory urinalysis of public employees qualifies as a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See National Fed'n of Fed. Employees v. Weinberger, 818 F.2d 935, 942 (D.C.Cir.1987); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F.2d 170, 176 (5th Cir.1987), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1072, 99 L.Ed.2d 232 (1988); McDonell v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 1302, 1307 (8th Cir.1987); Division 241 Amalgamated Transit Union v. Suscy, 538 F.2d 1264, 1265 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1029, 97 S.Ct. 653, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976). Finding that a "search" has occurred is the starting point for "the inquiry into the standards governing such searches." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 337, 105 S.Ct. 733, 740, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). Determining whether a given search has been "unreasonable" requires a court to "balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2642, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); see also O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987).

A search may be "unreasonable" when an employer's suspicion of wrongdoing is not supported by objective facts and those rational inferences that may be drawn from them. See Security & Law Enforcement Employees v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 205 (2d Cir.1984) (applying the "reasonable suspicion" test to strip searches of prison guards); see also McDonell, 809 F.2d at 1308 (holding that selection for urinalysis must not be "arbitrary or discriminatory").

In his complaint appellant asserts that, prior to the time he was required to provide blood and urine samples, Metro-North had Therefore, we believe that plaintiff may be able to establish a colorable claim under section 1983 for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, recognizing of course that the judgment eventually reached will hinge on as yet unmade findings respecting the sufficiency of the factual basis upon which defendant based the alleged search.

no "reasonable or particularized" suspicion that he had violated the company's anti-drug regulations. It is undisputed that a supervisor found plaintiff sitting at a table in a locker room with several other employees and that there were cups on the table, which defendant further claims contained alcoholic beverages. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff exhibited signs of intoxication, which plaintiff denies. If defendant establishes these facts in the future, the search would appear to have been justifiable. If not, plaintiff could reasonably argue that it was unlawful. See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 90-91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 341-42, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979).

B. Jurisdiction Exists Over Constitutional Claims

An analysis of the district court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Coppinger's Sec. 1983 claims on the grounds that binding arbitration under the RLA was the sole and exclusive remedy for the causes of action asserted in his complaint must be undertaken.

The exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge and other "minor disputes" under the Metro-North collective bargaining agreement is the federal dispute resolution procedure created by the RLA. 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq. Such "minor disputes" initially must be pursued through the railroad's internal procedures and, if not settled there, may be submitted to a division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Section 3 of the RLA establishes that Board and limits judicial review of its decisions. See Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1414, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987); Union Pacific R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 93, 99 S.Ct. 399, 402, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978) (per curiam).

In enacting the RLA "Congress endeavored to promote stability in labor-management relations in this important national industry by providing effective and efficient remedies for the resolution of railroad employee disputes arising out of the interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements." Sheehan, 439 U.S. at 94, 99 S.Ct. at 402. We recognize that judicial review of Board decisions is therefore quite limited.

Appellant in the case at hand does not seek review of the Board's determination. He attempts instead to pursue separate and independent causes of action upon statutory and constitutional grounds. We cannot adopt Metro-North's argument that the RLA provides sole and exclusive remedy for the wrongs complained of in this case, nor can we agree that the RLA preempts Coppinger's civil rights action. Buell, 107 S.Ct. at 1410; Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). As the Supreme Court stated in Gardner-Denver

In submitting his grievance to arbitration, an employee seeks to vindicate his contractual right under a collective-bargaining agreement. By contrast, in filing a lawsuit under [the federal statute], an employee asserts independent statutory rights accorded by Congress. The distinctly separate nature of these contractual and statutory rights is not vitiated merely because both were violated as a result of the same factual occurrence. And certainly no inconsistency results from permitting both rights to be pursued in their...