Masters v. Daniel Intern. Corp., No. 88-1345

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore McKAY and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL; PER CURIAM
Citation917 F.2d 455
Parties118 Lab.Cas. P 56,549, 5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1454 Ronald MASTERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 88-1345
Decision Date23 October 1990

Page 455

917 F.2d 455
118 Lab.Cas. P 56,549, 5 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1454
Ronald MASTERS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 88-1345.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 23, 1990.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1990.

Dan L. Wulz of Bryan, Lykins, Hejtmanek & Wulz, Topeka, Kan., for petitioner-appellant.

Leonard J. Spooner of Thompson, Mann and Hutson, Greenville, S.C., Lizabeth Lee Walther of Thompson, Mann and Hutson, Washington, D.C., and Arthur E. Palmer of Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, Topeka, Kan., for respondent-appellee.

Before McKAY and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

In our original panel opinion, 895 F.2d 1295, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of Petitioner-Appellant Ronald Masters'

Page 456

Complaint alleging a state-law claim for retaliatory discharge against his employer, Respondent-Appellee Daniel International Corporation ("Daniel"). We held that Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5851 (the "Act"), pre-empts a state-law claim for retaliatory discharge for reporting nuclear safety violations.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted Masters' certiorari petition, vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of English v. General Electric Co., --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). In English, the Supreme Court held that a state-law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted by the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not fall within the boundaries of the pre-empted field of nuclear safety, primarily because such a claim does not have enough direct and substantial effect on decisions made by those who build or operate nuclear facilities concerning radiological safety levels. Moreover, the Court found that such a tort claim does not conflict with any particular aspect or congressional goal of the Act.

In light of English, we find that Masters' state-law claim for retaliatory discharge is not pre-empted by the Act. However, our finding is not dispositive of this matter. The district court also dismissed Masters' state-law claim for retaliatory discharge on the basis that the Kansas Supreme Court would not recognize a cause of action for retaliatory discharge under circumstances where an employee has an alternative remedy available to him. The district court found that Masters had an alternative remedy available to him under the Act. In view of this Court's decision on remand that Masters' retaliatory discharge claim is not pre-empted by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Palladino ex rel. U.S. v. Vna of Southern N.J., Civil Action No. 96-2252 (JBS).
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1999
    ...simply stated that, as suggested by the Supreme Court, state law is not pre-empted in light of English. See Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 456 (10th Cir.1990). The last two cases which defendants cite, Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 777 F.Supp. 1089 (D.R.I.1991), and Kozar v. AT & T......
  • Horizon Holdings v. Genmar Holdings, No. 01-2193-JWL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • October 2, 2002
    ...a federal statutory right. See Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1399 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990)). In fact, the Kansas Supreme Court has acknowledged the Tenth Circuit's Poison decision and concluded that the Circui......
  • Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., No. 80408
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 6, 1998
    ...statute provides an adequate alternative remedy. Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 838, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991). Masters v. Daniel, Intern. Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990), relied on Polson. The question to ask in resolving recognition of a state tort claim for retaliatory discharge is whet......
  • Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, No. 75662-7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • December 22, 2005
    ...adequacy of redress for the employee rather than whether the public policy is adequately protected. Compare Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990) (remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(B) adequate), with Norris, 881 F.2d at 1151 (remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Palladino ex rel. U.S. v. Vna of Southern N.J., Civil Action No. 96-2252 (JBS).
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 30, 1999
    ...simply stated that, as suggested by the Supreme Court, state law is not pre-empted in light of English. See Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 456 (10th Cir.1990). The last two cases which defendants cite, Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 777 F.Supp. 1089 (D.R.I.1991), and Kozar v. AT & T......
  • Horizon Holdings v. Genmar Holdings, No. 01-2193-JWL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • October 2, 2002
    ...a federal statutory right. See Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1399 (10th Cir.1997) (citing Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990)). In fact, the Kansas Supreme Court has acknowledged the Tenth Circuit's Poison decision and concluded that the Circui......
  • Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., No. 80408
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 6, 1998
    ...statute provides an adequate alternative remedy. Bair v. Peck, 248 Kan. 824, 838, 811 P.2d 1176 (1991). Masters v. Daniel, Intern. Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990), relied on Polson. The question to ask in resolving recognition of a state tort claim for retaliatory discharge is whet......
  • Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, No. 75662-7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • December 22, 2005
    ...adequacy of redress for the employee rather than whether the public policy is adequately protected. Compare Masters v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 917 F.2d 455, 457 (10th Cir.1990) (remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(B) adequate), with Norris, 881 F.2d at 1151 (remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT