Hanks v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-1557,89-1557
• Parties: 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2508, 59 USLW 2040, 116 Lab.Cas. P 10,226, 5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 755 Susan Carol HANKS, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 341

906 F.2d 341

134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2508, 59 USLW 2040,

116 Lab.Cas. P 10,226,

5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 755

Susan Carol HANKS, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 89-1557.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1990.

Decided June 18, 1990.

Paul Alan Levy, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

R. Kent Sellers, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before ARNOLD and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Susan Carol Hanks appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of General Motors (GM). She asserted several state law claims arising from GM's decision to place her under the supervision of a person who was arrested for sexually assaulting her daughter. The district court held that her state law claims were preempted by federal labor law because the claims involved issues of Hanks' job assignment and transfer. These issues, according to the district court, could be resolved only by analyzing the collective bargaining agreement. We reverse and hold that there is no preemption because her claims are independent of that agreement.

BACKGROUND

GM hired Hanks in September 1977 as a line worker in the hard trim department at GM's Leeds plant in Kansas City, Missouri. On January 23, 1985, Lee Cobb, Hanks' supervisor, sexually assaulted Hanks' daughter. The police arrested Cobb on February 11, 1985 at the Leeds Plant in full view of Hanks' co-workers, who were fully aware of circumstances leading to Cobb's arrest. On March 6, 1985, Hanks entered a hospital for treatment of severe depression. She remained in the hospital for over three weeks. GM then ordered Hanks to undergo examinations by a GM physician for the purpose of determining Hanks' ability to return to work. After a second examination by the same physician, GM sent her a notice that she was to return to her former assignment. Cobb continued to be the foreman and supervisor of the line to which Hanks was directed to return. Hanks failed to return to work. GM then sent her a letter stating that her seniority had been broken and that GM considered her to have voluntarily quit her employment.

Hanks was a member of The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local Union No. 93. The collective bargaining agreement between the Union and GM established a grievance procedure for employee complaints over such issues as sick leave, leaves of absence, work assignment, and discharge. The first step of this procedure was to file a grievance with the employee's foreman.

Hanks did not timely file a grievance, but instead filed this action against GM in Missouri state court. The complaint contained four counts: outrageous conduct on the part of GM, wrongful discharge, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She asked for damages only.

GM removed the action to federal district court on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction, and subsequently moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on all claims because Sec. 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted Hanks' state law claims and because Hanks failed to state a cause of action under Missouri law. The district court determined that Sec. 301 preempted all of Hanks' claims and granted summary judgment in GM's favor. It also dismissed the wrongful discharge claim for failure to state a claim. Hanks appealed.

On appeal, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim. Hanks v. General Motors Corp., 859 F.2d 67 (8th Cir.1988). We remanded the remainder of the case, however, to determine whether resolution of each claim required construction or interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, because that determination triggers the preemption issue. Id. at 70.

On remand, the district court held that the three remaining claims were connected to Hanks' job assignment and could only be

resolved by reference to the terms and provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. It found that because the collective bargaining agreement permits GM in some circumstances to terminate Hanks, reference to the agreement was necessary to determine whether Hanks' claims had merit. Thus, according to the district court, Hanks' three remaining claims were preempted by the LMRA. Hanks appeals for a second time to this Court.

DISCUSSION

Hanks describes her claims as independent of the collective bargaining agreement. ¹ Her claims are:

(1) GM intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Hanks by requiring her to return to a job that was under the direct supervision of the person who sexually assaulted her daughter;

(2) GM's conduct, by intentionally or recklessly requiring Hanks to work under the direct supervision of the person who sexually assaulted her daughter, was extreme and outrageous; ² and

(3) GM intentionally injured Hanks without justification.

To prevail on either her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim or her outrageous conduct claim, Hanks must prove that GM's conduct in requiring her to work with the person who sexually assaulted her daughter was extreme and outrageous, that GM acted intentionally or recklessly, and that GM's conduct resulted in significant, medically diagnosable emotional distress or mental injury. To prevail on prima facie tort, Hanks must prove that GM intentionally injured her by its conduct without sufficient justification. Hanks maintains that none of these inquiries require reference to the collective bargaining agreement.

GM's theory of preemption is that its defense to Hanks' claims requires an examination of the collective bargaining agreement. The essence of GM's defense is that its actions taken with respect to Hanks were in compliance with provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, it was justified in dismissing Hanks.

The Supreme Court construes Sec. 301 of the LMRA to preempt state law claims where the resolution of the state law claim "substantially depends" on the interpretation of terms or provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1915, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985). If the state law claim is "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract," that claim is preempted. Id. at 213, 105 S.Ct. at 1912. If the claim is not "inextricably intertwined" with a collective bargaining agreement, that claim is independent and is not preempted. Lingle v. Norge Division, Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399, 407, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1882, 100 L.Ed.2d 410, 419 (1988). Finally, a state law claim may involve analysis of the same set of facts as a claim arising under the collective bargaining agreement without compelling preemption. Id. at 407-08, 108 S.Ct. at 1882-83, 100 L.Ed.2d at 419-20. ³

With these standards and principles in mind, we examine Hanks' state law claims to determine whether interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is necessary to resolve the claim. See Johnson v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 876 F.2d 620, 623 (8th Cir.1989).

Our review of Hanks' claims confirms that they are closely parallel to claims in which the Supreme Court has found no preemption. None of her claims allege that GM violated any duty explicitly or implicitly arising from the collective bargaining agreement. None of her claims are "inextricably intertwined" with that agreement. Her claims can and must be resolved independent of any terms or provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Hanks accuses GM of acting outrageously, of intentionally inflicting emotional distress, and intentionally injuring Hanks by requiring her to work with a person who sexually assaulted her daughter. These involve duties owed by GM to every member of society, not just to employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement. See United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 110 S.Ct. 1904, 1910-11, 109 L.Ed.2d 362 (1990) (holding that the state law claim was preempted because it was inextricably intertwined but stating that the result would have been different if the defendant had violated a general duty owed to all citizens); ⁴ see also Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 211-12, 105 S.Ct. at 1911-12 (Sec. 301 does not grant the parties to a collective bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is illegal under state law); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 1021, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974) (while certain rights under the NLRA are waivable, an individual's substantive right derived from an independent body of law cannot be avoided by a contractual agreement).

To determine the merits of any of Hanks' claims, neither the trier of fact nor the trier of law has to determine whether her discharge was warranted under the terms and provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. ⁵ See Johnson v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 876 F.2d at 624. The same can be said of GM's defense: To determine whether GM's compliance with the collective bargaining agreement is a defense to Hanks' claims, an interpretation of that agreement is not required. Thus, Hanks' state law claims are "independent" of the collective bargaining agreement. See id. Because of the "independence" of Hanks' claims, permitting Hanks' state law claims to go forward will not interfere with the collective bargaining process or deter the effectiveness of arbitration, see Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103-04, 82 S.Ct. 571, 576-77, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962), and will not result in conflicting interpretations of collective bargaining agreements, see Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 210-11, 105 S.Ct. at 1910-11.

Moreover, the possibility that Hanks had a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement is not sufficient to conclude that preemption is in order. ⁶ Keehr v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 825 F.2d 133, 137...