Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.

• Docket Number: 21-1168
• Decision Date: 27 June 2023
• Parties: MALLORY v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

1

600 U.S. ____

MALLORY v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.

No. 21-1168

United States Supreme Court

June 27, 2023

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT

Argued November 8, 2022

Robert Mallory worked for Norfolk Southern as a freight-car mechanic for nearly 20 years, first in Ohio, then in Virginia. After he left the company, Mr. Mallory moved to Pennsylvania for a period before returning to Virginia. Along the way he was diagnosed with cancer. Because he attributed his illness to his work at Norfolk Southern, Mr. Mallory sued his former employer under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§51-60, a federal workers' compensation scheme permitting railroad employees to recover damages for their employers' negligence. Mr. Mallory filed his lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court. Norfolk Southern-a company incorporated in Virginia and headquartered there-resisted the suit on the basis that a Pennsylvania court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Norfolk Southern noted that when the complaint was filed, Mr Mallory resided in Virginia, and the complaint alleged that Mr. Mallory was exposed to carcinogens only in Ohio and Virginia. Mr. Mallory pointed to Norfolk Southern's presence in Pennsylvania, noting that Norfolk Southern manages over 2,000 miles of track, operates 11 rail yards and runs 3 locomotive repair shops in Pennsylvania. In fact Norfolk Southern has registered to do business in Pennsylvania in light of its" 'regular, systematic, [and] extensive'" operations there. 266 A. 3d 542, 562; see 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §411(a). And Pennsylvania requires out-of-state companies that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on "any cause of action" against them. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i), (b). By complying with this statutory scheme, Mr. Mallory submitted, Norfolk Southern had consented to suit in Pennsylvania on claims just like his.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Norfolk Southern.

That court found that the Pennsylvania law-requiring an out-of-state firm to answer in the Commonwealth any suits against it in exchange for status as a registered foreign corporation and the benefits that en-tails-violates the Due Process Clause.

Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded. This case is controlled by Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93. Much like the Missouri law that the Court in Pennsylvania Fire found to comport with the Due Process Clause, the Pennsylvania law at issue here provides that an out-of-state corporation "may not do business in this Commonwealth until it registers with" the Department of State. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §411(a). Among other things, Pennsylvania law is explicit that "qualification as a foreign corporation" shall permit state courts to "exercise general personal jurisdiction" over a registered foreign corporation, just as they can over domestic corporations. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2). Norfolk Southern has complied with this law since 1998, when it registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Norfolk Southern applied for a "Certificate of Authority" from the Commonwealth which, once approved, conferred on Norfolk Southern both the benefits and burdens shared by domestic corporations, including amenability to suit in state court on any claim. For more than two decades, Norfolk Southern has agreed to be found in Pennsylvania and answer any suit there.

Pennsylvania Fire held that suits premised on these grounds do not deny a defendant due process of law. Mr. Mallory no longer lives in Pennsylvania and his cause of action did not accrue there. But none of that makes any difference. To decide this case, the Court need not speculate whether any other statutory scheme and set of facts would suffice to establish consent to suit. It is enough to acknowledge that the state law and facts before the Court fall squarely within Pennsylvania Fire's rule.

In the proceedings below, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seemed to recognize that Pennsylvania Fire dictated an answer in Mr. Mallory's favor but ruled for Norfolk Southern because, in its view, intervening decisions from this Court had "implicitly overruled" Pennsylvania Fire. See 266 A. 3d, at 559, 567. That was error. As this Court has explained: "If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case," as Pennsylvania Fire does here, a lower court "should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484. This is true even if the lower court thinks the precedent is in tension with "some other line of decisions." Ibid. Pp. 10-12.

266 A. 3d 542, vacated and remanded.

GORSUCH, J., announced the judgment of the Court, delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and III-B, in which THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II, III-A, and IV, in which THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KAGAN and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.

JUSTICE GORSUCH announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and III-B, and an opinion with respect to Parts II, III-A, and IV, in which JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE JACKSON join.

OPINION

GORSUCH, JUSTICE

Imagine a lawsuit based on recent events. A few months ago, a Norfolk Southern train derailed in Ohio near the Pennsylvania border. Its cargo? Hazardous chemicals. Some poured into a nearby creek; some burst into flames. In the aftermath, many residents reported unusual symptoms.^[1] Suppose an Ohio resident sued the train conductor seeking compensation for an illness attributed to the accident. Suppose, too, that the plaintiff served his complaint on the conductor across the border in Pennsylvania. Everyone before us agrees a Pennsylvania court could hear that lawsuit consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court could do so even if the conductor was a Virginia resident who just happened to be passing through Pennsylvania when the process server caught up with him.

Now, change the hypothetical slightly. Imagine the same Ohio resident brought the same suit in the same Pennsylvania state court, but this time against Norfolk Southern. Assume, too, the company has filed paperwork consenting to appear in Pennsylvania courts as a condition of registering to do business in the Commonwealth. Could a Pennsylvania court hear that case too? You might think so. But today, Norfolk Southern argues that the Due Process Clause entitles it to a more favorable rule, one shielding it from suits even its employees must answer. We reject the company's argument. Nothing in the Due Process Clause requires such an incongruous result.

I

Robert Mallory worked for Norfolk Southern as a freight-car mechanic for nearly 20 years, first in Ohio, then in Virginia. During his time with the company, Mr. Mallory contends, he was responsible for spraying boxcar pipes with asbestos and handling chemicals in the railroad's paint shop. He also demolished car interiors that, he alleges, contained carcinogens.

After Mr. Mallory left the company, he moved to Pennsylvania for a period before returning to Virginia. Along the way, he was diagnosed with cancer. Attributing his illness to his work for Norfolk Southern, Mr. Mallory hired Pennsylvania lawyers and sued his former employer in Pennsylvania state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65 as amended, 45 U.S.C. §§51-60. That law creates a workers' compensation scheme permitting railroad employees to recover damages for their employers' negligence. See Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Sorrell, 549 U.S. 158, 165-166 (2007).

Norfolk Southern resisted Mr. Mallory's suit on constitutional grounds. By the time he filed his complaint, the company observed, Mr. Mallory resided in Virginia. His complaint alleged that he was exposed to carcinogens in Ohio and Virginia. Meanwhile, the company itself was incorporated in Virginia and had its headquarters there too.^[2] On these facts, Norfolk Southern submitted, any effort by a Pennsylvania court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it would offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mr. Mallory saw things differently. He noted that Norfolk Southern manages over 2,000 miles of track, operates 11 rail yards, and runs 3 locomotive repair shops in Pennsylvania. He also pointed out that Norfolk Southern has registered to do business in Pennsylvania in light of its" 'regular, systematic, [and] extensive'" operations there. 266 A. 3d 542, 562 (Pa. 2021); see 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §411(a) (2014). That is significant, Mr. Mallory argued, because Pennsylvania requires out-of-state companies that register to do business in the Commonwealth to agree to appear in its courts on "any cause of action" against them. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i), (b) (2019); see 266 A. 3d, at 564. By complying with this statutory scheme, Mr. Mallory contended, Norfolk Southern had consented to suit in Pennsylvania on claims just like his.

Ultimately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with Norfolk Southern. Yes, Mr. Mallory correctly read Pennsylvania law. It requires an out-of-state firm to answer any suits against it in exchange for status as a registered foreign corporation and the benefits that entails. 266 A. 3d, at 561-563. But, no, the court held,...