McCormick v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 88-3542,88-3542
• Citation: 934 F.2d 531
• Parties: 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2453, 59 USLW 2749, 119 Lab.Cas. P 10,752, 119 Lab.Cas. P 10,852, 6 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 915 William T. McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; Cameron Allen, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 531

934 F.2d 531

137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2453, 59 USLW 2749,

119 Lab.Cas. P 10,752,

119 Lab.Cas. P 10,852,

6 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 915

William T. McCORMICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; Cameron Allen, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3542.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 5, 1990.

Decided May 28, 1991.

As Amended June 21, 1991.

Thomas Hunt Roberts, Richmond, Va., argued (Malvin W. Brubaker, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Paul Michael Thompson, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., argued (Martin J Barrington, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, CHAPMAN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc. ^*

CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge:

The issue presented here is whether an employee's state law claims against his employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and negligence in the care of a bailment are preempted by Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). The employee's claims arose out of his employer's disposal of the contents of his work locker upon his discharge. The district court ruled that because resolution of the state law claims would require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement to determine whether the employer was authorized to act as it did, the state law claims were preempted by Sec. 301.

We affirm.

I.

William T. McCormick was employed by AT & T Technologies, Inc. ("AT & T") in Richmond, Virginia, until his discharge in October, 1986. During his employment with AT & T, McCormick was a member of a collective bargaining unit whose exclusive bargaining agent was the Communications Workers of America ("the union"). The terms and conditions of McCormick's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement between AT & T and the union. The agreement vested McCormick with numerous rights and benefits including the right to grieve and arbitrate employment disputes.

On September 11, 1986, McCormick left his job at AT & T claiming to be ill. He did not return to work, and on September 26, 1986, AT & T notified him by registered letter that his employment would be terminated if he did not report to work by September 30, 1986. McCormick did not report and AT & T terminated his employment by letter dated October 1, 1986. McCormick's termination was made effective September 22, 1986.

On October 2, 1986, Cameron Allen, McCormick's supervisor at AT & T, was notified of McCormick's termination. Allen opened McCormick's work locker to remove tools that had been issued him by AT & T. Allen also removed McCormick's personal belongings and discarded them. Allen later was confronted by the union shop steward regarding McCormick's locker. The steward told Allen that other employees had rummaged through the trash and found a personal letter addressed to McCormick. According to the steward, the letter had been read by several of McCormick's co-workers.

On October 3, 1986, McCormick returned to AT & T. During a meeting at which McCormick was represented by a union steward, McCormick offered excuses as to why he had failed to report to work. AT & T decided to void the termination letter, and McCormick returned to his job. Later that day, McCormick reported to AT & T that he had been made the subject of a personal remark related to the letter retrieved from the trash by his co-workers. AT & T transferred McCormick to an area where he could work alone. Nonetheless, McCormick left the building later that evening never to return. AT & T terminated McCormick's employment for job abandonment effective October 3, 1986.

In December, 1987, McCormick filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Henrico County, Virginia, against AT & T and Allen, alleging that under Virginia tort law the company's actions in disposing of the contents of his locker constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and negligence in the care of a bailment. AT & T petitioned for removal to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 arguing that the federal court had original jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). AT & T subsequently moved for summary judgment asserting that McCormick's claims were preempted by Sec. 301 of the LMRA, and that any claims McCormick might have had under Sec. 301 were barred by his failure to exhaust his contractual remedies and by the applicable statute of limitations. McCormick moved to remand the action to state court and filed a memorandum in opposition to AT & T's summary judgment motion.

On March 29, 1988, the district court denied McCormick's motion to remand. It found that McCormick's state law claims were preempted and therefore properly removed to federal court. The district court granted AT & T's motion for summary judgment because McCormick's claims were time barred by the six-month statute of limitations governing Sec. 301 actions.

McCormick appeals, and we affirm.

II.

McCormick concedes, as he must, that if his state law claims are preempted by Sec. 301 of the LMRA, then the district court acted correctly in granting AT & T's motion for summary judgment. This is so because if the state law claims are preempted, it is plain that the case was properly removed to federal court, see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393-94, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430-31, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557, 560-62, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 1237-38, 20 L.Ed.2d 126 (1968), and that any federal claims McCormick might have had were barred by Sec. 301's six-month statute of limitations, see DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2293, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983); Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp., 811 F.2d 253, 256 (4th Cir.1987).

Thus, the only question is whether McCormick's state law claims are preempted by Sec. 301. For the reasons that follow, we hold that his state law claims are indeed preempted.

A.

Section 301 of the LMRA provides:

Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). Section 301 not only provides federal courts with jurisdiction over employment disputes covered by collective bargaining agreements, but also directs federal courts to fashion a body of federal common law to resolve such disputes. See AllisChalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 209, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1910, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985). Moreover, "the pre-emptive force of Sec. 301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any state cause of action 'for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.' " Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2853, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). "State Law is thus 'pre-empted' by Sec. 301 in that only the federal law fashioned by the courts under Sec. 301 governs the interpretation and application of collective bargaining agreements." United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 1909, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990).

In Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988), the Supreme Court reiterated its test to determine exactly when state laws are preempted by Sec. 301. Consistent with its approach in earlier cases, the Court in Lingle emphasized that "state law is pre-empted by Sec. 301 ... only if such application requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement." Id. 108 S.Ct. at 1885; see also IBEW, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 863 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 2168-69 n. 5, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987) (approving preemption where plaintiff conceded that "[t]he nature and scope of the duty of care owed Plaintiff is determined by reference to the collective bargaining agreement"); Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 220, 105 S.Ct. at 1915-16 (approving preemption if application of state law "substantially depend[s] upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between the parties in a labor contract"). Thus, the question in preemption analysis is not whether the source of a cause of action is state law, but whether resolution of the cause of action requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. This approach advances Sec. 301's goal of "ensur[ing] uniform interpretation of collective bargaining agreements, and thus ... promot[ing] the peaceable, consistent resolution of labor-management disputes." Lingle, 108 S.Ct. at 1880 (discussing Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 82 S.Ct. 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962)).

Section 301 does not, however, displace entirely state law in the labor relations context. "[A] State may provide [substantive rights] to workers when adjudication of those rights does not depend upon the interpretation of [collective bargaining] agreements." Lingle, 108 S.Ct. at 1883. The Lingle Court made clear that mere parallelism between the facts and issues to be addressed under a state law claim and those to be addressed under Sec. 301 does not render the state-law analysis dependent on the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, "even if dispute resolution pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, on the one hand, and state law, on the other, would require addressing precisely the same set of facts, as long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is 'independent' of the agreement for Sec. 301 pre-emption purposes." Id.

Following the analysis of the Supreme Court in Lingle, we next...