Matson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13-36174,13-36174
• Citation: 840 F.3d 1126
• Parties: Mary Matson, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

840 F.3d 1126

Mary Matson, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant–Appellee.

No. 13-36174

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 3, 2016—Seattle, Washington

Filed November 4, 2016

Donald H. Mullins (argued) and Jacob D.C. Humphreys, Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Eric D. Miller (argued), Tobias S. Piering, Javier F. Garcia, and Michael T. Reynvaan, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before: Susan P. Graber, Marsha S. Berzon, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

BERZON, Circuit Judge:

We once again address whether a state employment claim can go forward where the employee's terms and conditions of employment are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. See Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016).

This case, unlike any of the three appeals consolidated in the recent Kobold opinion, concerns a state equal employment claim alleging a hostile work environment. Mary Matson brought suit against her employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), asserting, among other claims, a state law gender-based hostile work environment claim. A jury returned a verdict for Matson on that claim, but her victory was short-lived. The district court granted UPS's motion for a new trial on the ground that the claim was preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The jury in the second trial found for UPS. Matson challenges the district court's preemption ruling. We conclude that the district court erred in holding Matson's claim preempted and so reverse.

I.

Mary Matson worked for UPS at its Boeing Field International hub in Seattle from 2002 to 2010. During most of that time Matson was employed as a “combination worker,” meaning that she was responsible both for unloading and sorting packages that arrived on airplanes and for delivering them locally. Matson was part of a unit of employees represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174 (“Teamsters”). The terms and conditions of her employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between UPS and the Teamsters.

Matson frequently complained during her employment that, because of her gender, she was subject to unfair and demeaning treatment in the workplace. Among other examples of such treatment, she alleged, her supervisors routinely favored male employees when assigning what she called “extra work”—that is, package deliveries not previously assigned to a particular route. Matson valued such additional work assignments because they enabled her to “stay on the clock longer than normal, thereby increasing her pay.” She filed numerous grievances through her union seeking redress for these practices. UPS responded to Matson's grievances several times by agreeing that it would consider the seniority of Matson and other employees when assigning work. Occasionally, UPS agreed to compensate Matson for thirty minutes to one hour at her overtime rate.

Unsatisfied with the results of the grievances, Matson in 2008 filed an employment discrimination and retaliation complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission (“WSHRC”), alleging, among other matters, that UPS “has a pattern and practice of favoring male employees by offering extra work to them.” The commission denied the complaint. Matson also filed a similar charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which adopted the findings of the WSHRC.

“Extra work” is not a defined term in Matson's CBA. The term appears just once, in a “Sort Addendum” that applies only to “Sorters, Pre–Loaders, Clerks, Car Washers, and all other Inside Employees.” The Sort Addendum does not define “extra work,” but provides that UPS “recognizes that the principles of seniority shall be given prime consideration for extra work.” A separate addendum to the CBA provides generally that UPS “recognizes that the principles of seniority shall be given prime consideration in the every day operation of the business.”

In February 2010, UPS fired Matson for “proven dishonesty,” relying on the results of an investigation into whether Matson had falsified delivery records. Matson initially contested her discharge by filing a grievance in accord with the procedures outlined in her CBA.¹ A joint Teamsters/UPS labor panel affirmed her discharge, so her case was not sent to arbitration.

Matson then filed suit against UPS in Washington state court, asserting several state law causes of action: (1) race and gender discrimination; (2) a race- and gender-based hostile work environment; (3) discrimination and retaliatory termination based on Matson's opposition to unlawful labor practices; and (4) wrongful termination, based on the filing of a workers' compensation claim.² UPS removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

UPS then moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion on the merits with respect to Matson's claims for race discrimination, race-based hostile work environment, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, but denied summary judgment with respect to Matson's claims of gender discrimination, gender-based hostile work environment, and discrimination on the basis of opposition to unlawful practices. With regard to Matson's gender-based hostile work environment claim, UPS maintained that the claim was preempted under LMRA § 301 because it was “inextricably intertwined” with an interpretation of the CBA, but the district court rejected that contention. “[N]o interpretation would be necessary for purposes of Ms. Matson's gender-based hostile work environment claim, and plaintiff does not dispute the meaning of any of its terms,” the district court concluded.

The case proceeded to trial. At trial, Matson testified that, in her view, what she termed “extra work” should have been assigned to her but was, instead, performed by male employees with less seniority. She testified that she would be “humiliated in front of [her] coworkers” and treated as “some kind of troublemaker just because [she was] asking for extra work.”

In addition to her allegations regarding work assignments, Matson testified to numerous other incidents that, she contended, contributed to a hostile work environment including:

• A supervisor and other employees refused to help her lift a 150-pound package, and laughed at her as she struggled to do it alone. During that incident, one supervisor acted in an intimidating manner, as he “clenched up his fists, put them behind his back, and stepped right into [Matson's] face, gritted his teeth.” Matson was forced to seek out another coworker to help her lift the package. Matson's effort to lift the package resulted in a serious back injury that caused her to miss more than a year of work.

• Various UPS managers disregarded her complaints of workplace hostility and threatened to file charges against her if she continued to make what they called “false statements.”

• A male coworker screamed at her and “began to choke [her]” after she had playfully tapped his knee. In response to this incident her supervisors did nothing.

• Matson's supervisors assigned her a less desirable package car rather than a van. All of the male employees, many of whom had less seniority than Matson, were given vans.

• In the meeting in which she was terminated, she was confronted by seven men, all of whom were “very hostile.” Matson was accused of both lying and stealing time, while a man involved in the same activity was not charged with stealing time.

At the close of Matson's case-in-chief, UPS moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing once more that Matson's hostile work environment claim was preempted under § 301. The court determined that ruling on the motion before hearing the defense witnesses would be premature.

UPS then presented witnesses who disputed Matson's claim that the additional package deliveries constituted extra work. One UPS employee stated that such deliveries were “really what I called part of normal dispatch.”

After hearing UPS's witnesses, the district court denied UPS's motion for judgment as a matter of law. It explained that “preemption is not mandated simply because defendant refers to the CBA in mounting its defense.” The court specifically noted that Matson had presented evidence “that work was given to men instead of her.” That fact, along with the other incidents of hostility she described, “in theory, support a hostile work environment claim without reference to the CBA.” Finally, the court noted that for the purposes of Matson's claim, “extra work, seniority, and prime consideration are simply a reference point that elucidates her claims. Whether or not seniority was actually given prime consideration is not necessary for determination of these claims.”

Matson next offered rebuttal testimony in which she disagreed with UPS's evidence regarding the disputed work assignments. She maintained that certain package deliveries were work that should have been awarded in “seniority order,” and that other such work was improperly dispatched by a male hourly employee rather than by a supervisor. When asked on cross-examination whether she had ever filed grievances against higher-seniority employees, Matson stated that “this is a very muddy area, because ... in the contract, there's a lot of work that's considered full-time work and part-time work. And there's a lot of different categories.... And all that people are trying to do is separate whose job is whose so that you know whether or not you can bid on it. And that's considered extra work.”

The jury found for UPS on Matson's discrimination and retaliation claims. The jury returned a verdict for Matson, however, on her hostile work environment claim and awarded $500,000 in damages for emotional distress. The district court's jury instruction regarding Matson's hostile work...