Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-2069,93-2069
• Citation: 2 F.3d 590
• Parties: 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2297, 62 USLW 2200, 126 Lab.Cas. P 10,874 Thomas Henry ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 590

2 F.3d 590

144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2297, 62 USLW 2200,

126 Lab.Cas. P 10,874

Thomas Henry ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-2069.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 24, 1993.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 3, 1993.

Ben A. Goff, Goff & Meador, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.

Alfred John Harper, II, Julie A. Parraguirre, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

The question presented in this appeal is whether the Railway Labor Act or the Federal Aviation Act "completely pre-empts", and thus confers federal jurisdiction over, Thomas Anderson's state law claim that American Airlines ("American") retaliated against him for filing a workers' compensation claim. Because we find that Anderson's claim is not completely pre-empted, we reverse. We therefore remand with instructions to vacate the judgment and remand this case to the state court from which it was removed.

I

Anderson was employed as an aircraft mechanic for American at Houston's Intercontinental Airport. On January 5, 1990, while riding on a bus from an employee parking lot, Anderson injured his back when the bus driver made a sudden stop. After several weeks, the pain from this injury forced Anderson to begin losing time from work. Anderson then filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Anderson's physician, Dr. Gerald DeLuca, later cleared Anderson to return to work. Some, but not all, of Dr. DeLuca's letters counseled Anderson to avoid lifting over twenty-five pounds. Independently, American's medical department concluded that Anderson should avoid heavy lifting, and American decided that Anderson's physical condition disqualified him from returning to his duties as an aircraft mechanic.

Anderson has two sources of rights that are relevant to his dispute with American: the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between American and the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. The Texas Workers' Compensation Act protects Anderson from retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Under this Act, employers are generally held liable to employees for injuries that employees receive in the course of their duties. Employers then pay fixed amounts for each accident that occurs and receive immunity from most common law claims that arise out of these accidents. Injured employees, in turn, receive prompt payments from their employers without regard to fault or negligence. An important component of this scheme is the statute that prohibits retaliation against employees who file workers' compensation claims in good faith. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c (Vernon supp.1993).

The CBA governs the terms and conditions of Anderson's employment. It does not expressly prohibit retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. It does, however, set up a grievance procedure to be followed to resolve questions about an employee's medical ability to perform his or her job. According to the CBA, if an employee's physician and an employer's physician do not agree about the employee's physical fitness to perform his or her duties and the employer disqualifies the employee from work, the employee can appeal the employer's decision to a System Review Panel. If the System Review Panel is unable to resolve the dispute, the CBA provides that the issue can be referred to a System Professional Medical Board. The Medical Board is composed of a doctor chosen by the employee, a doctor chosen by the employer, and a third doctor agreed upon by the first two. A majority of the Medical Board is empowered to determine whether the employee's medical condition warrants his or her return to work. The Medical Board's decision is final and binding on both the employer and the employee.

After American refused to allow Anderson to return to work as an aircraft mechanic, Anderson sought a review of this decision through the CBA's medical grievance procedures. Anderson first appealed to the System Review Panel. When the Panel was unable to resolve the issue, Anderson's case was referred to the System Professional Medical Board. However, the Medical Board never met. Instead, American informed Anderson that since his physician and American's medical department agreed that he should avoid lifting over twenty-five pounds, it would not be necessary to obtain a third doctor for further evaluation because a majority of the Board agreed about Anderson's condition. American stated that since Anderson's condition prevented him from performing the full scope of his duties, he could not "return to [his] former job of Aircraft Mechanic."

Anderson then filed this suit in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Significantly, Anderson alleged only that American violated article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes by retaliating against him for seeking benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. However, American removed this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, contending that federal question jurisdiction existed because federal law pre-empted Anderson's article 8307c claim. ¹ The district court denied Anderson's motion to remand, finding that the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act, ("Aviation Act"), 49 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1301 et seq., pre-empted Anderson's state law claim and conferred federal question jurisdiction over the case. The district court then granted American's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Anderson appeals.

II

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo to determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether any genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant law. Moore v. Eli Lilly & Co., 990 F.2d 812, 814-15 (5th Cir.1993).

III

Our first task is to determine whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear this case. Anderson claims only that he was retaliated against by American for filing a workers' compensation claim. State law prohibits this sort of retaliation. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. Thus, the face of Anderson's complaint does not state a federal cause of action. However, American removed this case to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), contending that that court had original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because the RLA and the Aviation Act pre-empted Anderson's claim.

It is axiomatic that the plaintiff is the master of his or her complaint. Generally, a plaintiff raises the claims that he or she wishes to pursue and omits those that he or she does not wish to pursue. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). A defendant may remove a state court action to federal court only if the action could have originally been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441. Thus, where there is no diversity jurisdiction, a federal question must be present in order for removal to be proper. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. at 2429. In other words, if a question of federal law does not appear on the face of a plaintiff's complaint, federal question jurisdiction does not exist, and removal is improper. The presence of a federal defense will not usually create federal question jurisdiction. Thus, removal on the basis of a federal defense, such as pre-emption, is generally improper. Id. at 392-93, 107 S.Ct. at 2429-30. However, there is a doctrine known as "complete pre-emption" which American asserts to be applicable in this case. The Supreme Court teaches us that under the "complete pre-emption" doctrine, the pre-emptive force of a federal statute is occasionally "so 'extraordinary' that it 'converts an ordinary state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim....' " Id. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 2430 (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1547, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987)). "Once an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, any claim purportedly based on that pre-empted state law is considered, from its inception, a federal claim, and therefore arises under federal law." Id.

The issue here is whether we have complete pre-emption. As we have stated, Anderson's complaint only raises a state law claim. American, however, argues that both the RLA and the Aviation Act completely pre-empt Anderson's claim. If either of these statutes completely pre-empt an article 8307c claim, federal question jurisdiction exists, and removal of this case was proper. However, if neither of these statutes completely pre-empt Anderson's article 8307c claim, no federal question jurisdiction exists, and removal of this case was improper. We will examine Anderson's article 8307c claim and the pre-emptive effect of the RLA and the Aviation Act in turn.

A

Anderson's sole claim against American is an article 8307c claim. Article 8307c provides that:

Sec. 1. No person may discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has in good faith filed a claim, hired a lawyer to represent him in a claim, instituted, or caused to be instituted, in good faith, any proceeding under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding.

Sec. 2. A person who violates any provision of Section 1 of this Act shall be liable for reasonable damages suffered by an employee as a result of the violation, and an employee discharged in violation of the Act shall be entitled to be reinstated to his former position. The burden of proof shall be upon...