Edwards v. Monty Whatley & Union Pac. R.R.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:16-cv-00002-KGB |
| Parties | JEFFERY L. EDWARDS PLAINTIFF v. MONTY WHATLEY and UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Before the Court is defendants Monty Whatley and Union Pacific Railroad's ("Union Pacific") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33). In response, plaintiff Jeffery L. Edwards filed a motion to certify and response to motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 59). Defendants replied (Dkt. No. 62). The Court invited the parties to brief certain issues raised by the Court related to Mr. Edwards' claims and the pending motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 63). In response to that Order, and while the motion for summary judgment was pending, Mr. Edwards filed motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 64, 66). For the following reasons, the Court denies Mr. Edwards' motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 64, 66). The Court determines that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ("RLA"), preempts and precludes Mr. Edwards' claims and, therefore, dismisses with prejudice Mr. Edwards' complaint. The Court denies as moot defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies as moot Mr. Edwards' motion to certify (Dkt. Nos. 33, 59). Even if this Court were to consider Mr. Edwards' claims, the Court would deny his motion to certify, would not permit him to relitigate issues already decided by the National Railroad Adjustment Board (the "NRAB"), and therefore, would grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Edwards originally filed this case in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas, against defendants Mr. Whatley and Union Pacific alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 ("ACRA"), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). When this action was originally filed, Mr. Edwards was the only named plaintiff. Defendants removed the case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Whatley, et al., Case No. 4:12-cv-00747-DPM (E.D. Ark. Nov. 29, 2012). The Court dismissed Mr. Edwards' federal claims in the original action and remanded the case to state court.
On March 31, 2014, Mr. Edwards filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas, against Mr. Whatley and Union Pacific alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ACRA (Dkt. No. 3, ¶¶ 15, 19). The amended complaint also added claims for a second plaintiff, Anthony Stokes (Id., ¶ 1). On December 28, 2015, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Stokes filed a second amended complaint that alleged ACRA claims on behalf of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Stokes and added claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on behalf of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Stokes (Count 1), a retaliation claim under the ACRA on behalf of Mr. Stokes in addition to the retaliation claim under the ACRA already alleged by Mr. Edwards (Count 2), and a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., on behalf of Mr. Edwards (Count 3) (Dkt. No. 16, ¶¶ 15, 21-28). With the addition of these federal claims, defendants removed the case based upon federal question jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 1).
On September 29, 2016, the Court granted defendants' motion to sever and ordered Mr. Stokes severed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 (Dkt. No. 20). Mr. Edwards later filed a motion to dismiss and remand (Dkt. No. 29). Before the Court ruled on thatpending motion to dismiss and remand, Mr. Whatley and Union Pacific filed a motion for summary judgment, addressing Mr. Edwards' federal and state law claims (Dkt. No. 33). The Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Mr. Edwards' motion to dismiss and remand: the Court dismissed with prejudice Mr. Edwards' federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the FMLA at Mr. Edwards' request, but the Court retained supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Edwards' remaining state law claims (Dkt. No. 41). Accordingly, at this time, the only remaining claims pending before the Court are Mr. Edwards' race discrimination and retaliation claims under the ACRA against Mr. Whatley and Union Pacific.
After reviewing the summary judgment filings, the Court invited the parties to brief the issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Edwards' remaining ACRA claims (Dkt. No. 63). Mr. Edwards filed a motion and brief arguing that the Court has jurisdiction, and the defendants responded in opposition (Dkt. Nos. 64, 67). Mr. Edwards also filed two motions for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 64, 66). Defendants oppose those motions (Dkt. No. 68).
Defendants filed a statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. No. 35). Mr. Edwards filed a signed response to defendants' statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. No. 60). The following facts are taken from defendants' statement of undisputed facts, unless otherwise noted.
Mr. Edwards began working at Union Pacific as a brakeman/switchman in June 2002, and he was an engineer from September 2005 until his discharge in August 2011 (Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 1). Mr. Edwards took multiple leaves of absence for various reasons, and Mr. Whatley, the Superintendent, never denied Mr. Edwards' requests for a medical leave of absence or an extension of a leave (Id., ¶ 2). Defendants argue that Mr. Edwards knew that, when he needed to take leave,his first step was to contact his manager and inform the manager that leave was needed. Then he would complete paperwork to be put on an approved leave of absence, which protected his job seniority (Id., ¶ 3). Mr. Edwards denies that he ever had to contact his immediate manager when he sought leave; rather, he asserts that he went to "Health and Medical" whenever he needed a leave of absence (Id.).
Mr. Edwards took four months of leave between May and September 2004, two months of leave between December 2005 and February 2006, and six months of leave between July 2006 and January 2007 to care for his father (Id., ¶ 4). Mr. Edwards took another year off of work from September 2009 until September 2010 due to purported mental health issues after a dispute on the telephone with a crew dispatch caller from Union Pacific's Crew Management Services ("CMS") (Id., ¶ 5). Mr. Edwards' temporary productive work assignment expired on September 22, 2010, at which point Mr. Edwards went back on a leave of absence for three more months, until December 2010, when he returned to full active duty at Union Pacific (Id., ¶ 6). Mr. Edwards filed a "Discrimination Claim" complaining about the fact that he was removed from "light duty" in September 2010, though this claim is not alleged in the operative complaint and therefore is not before this Court (Dkt. No. 33-1, at 71).
Later, due to a purported off-duty injury to his heel, Mr. Edwards began "laying off sick" on May 31, 2011, on Union Pacific's online system that tracks employee availability for work and dispatch (Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 7). Mr. Edwards testified that his status between May 31, 2011, to June 15, 2011, was "laying off sick." (Dkt. No. 33-1, at 22). Mr. Edwards further testified that, while he was laid off sick between May 31 and June 15, 2011, he continued to get calls from CMS to come to work (Id., at 22). Mr. Edwards also stated that he gave a copy of his MRI appointment to manager Bob Tannehill (Dkt. Nos. 33-1, at 22; 60, ¶ 8).
Mr. Edwards asserts that, on June 12, 2011, he told Mr. Tannehill that CMS kept calling him and that Mr. Tannehill needed to change Mr. Edwards' status (Dkt. Nos. 33-1, at 22, 60, ¶ 8). According to Mr. Edwards, Mr. Tannehill said that he would take care of it and, if CMS called Mr. Edwards again, that Mr. Edwards should just let a manager know (Dkt. No. 60, ¶ 8). Mr. Edwards contends that Mr. Tannehill "knew [Mr.] Edwards was having to have an MRI and that surgery was likely." (Id., ¶ 9)
At Mr. Edwards' June 15, 2011, appointment, his doctor scheduled a tendon repair surgery for June 22, 2011 (Dkt. No. 33-1, at 23). Mr. Edwards testified that he spoke to Bob Tannehill on June 15, 2011, and told him that he would need to change his status to medical leave of absence (Id., at 24). On June 23, 2011, the day after his surgery, CMS called Mr. Edwards to come to work (Dkt. Nos. 33-1, at 24; 60, ¶ 8). Mr. Edwards told them that he could not do so (Dkt. No. 33-1, at 24). Mr. Edwards hung up on CMS' computerized calls and was eventually connected with a live individual (Id.). Mr. Edwards testified that he told that individual that he had surgery the day before and would "be down for at least a couple of months." (Id., at 25). According to Mr. Edwards, the CMS representative said he would put Mr. Edwards "down for a 72-hour leave." (Id.). Mr. Edwards responded that "it looks like I'm going to have to have a medical leave of absence." (Id.). Mr. Edwards testified that the "next day or a couple of days later, CMS called me again to come to work." (Id.). According to Mr. Edwards, he said or thought: (Id.). In response, according to Mr. Edwards, CMS told Mr. Edwards that "you're going to have to apply for a medical leave of absence." (Id.).
Mr. Edwards testified that, on July 1 or July 2, 2011, he then called the manager's office in Pine Bluff, Little Rock, and Omaha (Id.). He admits that, at this time, CMS was still callinghim to come into work (Id.). Mr. Edwards testified that, on July 1 or July 2, 2011, he contacted a CMS Manager and told him that he had spoken with his manager in Little Rock and had been told that "they were gonna put me in medical leave of absence status to keep you all from calling me." (Id.). Mr. Edwards also testified that he told the CMS manager that "I assume they hadn't done it." (...
To continue reading
Request your trial