Nelson v. Soo Line R. Co., CIV 98-2262 DSD/JMM.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1999
• Docket Number: No. CIV 98-2262 DSD/JMM.,CIV 98-2262 DSD/JMM.
• Citation: 58 F.Supp.2d 1023
• Parties: Keith L. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, d/b/a CP Rail System, Joan Kuechle, and Daniel Janiga, M.D., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Page 1023

58 F.Supp.2d 1023

Keith L. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, d/b/a CP Rail System, Joan Kuechle, and Daniel Janiga, M.D., Defendants.

No. CIV 98-2262 DSD/JMM.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

May 5, 1999.

Cortney S. LeNeave, Richard L. Carlson and Hunegs, Stone, Koenig, LeNeave & Kvas, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff.

Jeffrey A. Eyres and Leonard, and Jeffrey R. Schmidt, Max C. Ramsey and Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for defendants.

ORDER

DOTY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on (1) defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and (2) defendants' motion to transfer venue. Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, the court grants defendants' motions.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an accident that occurred while plaintiff Keith L. Nelson was working as a conductor for defendant Soo Line Railroad Company ("Soo Line"). On January 29, 1997, Nelson fell off a Soo Line railroad car near Manfred, North Dakota, injuring his shoulder and arm. Under Soo Line's work rules, an injured employee must submit medical information he possesses regarding injuries received while on the job. Soo Line alleges that Nelson failed to provide all medical information. Nelson alleges that he made a full disclosure. On July 22, 1998, Soo Line initiated a formal investigation pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") negotiated between Soo Line and the United Transportation Union. Plaintiff appeared at the investigation proceeding, accompanied by a union representative. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, the hearing officer concluded that Nelson had failed to comply with Soo Line's work rules and imposed a ten day suspension.

On September 25, 1998, Nelson filed a three-count complaint in Hennepin County Court. Counts I and II relate to the circumstances surrounding plaintiff's injury. Soo Line is the only defendant to these counts. Count III relates to Soo Line's conduct after Nelson was injured. In addition to Soo Line, Joan Kuechle, Soo Line's disability claims manager, and Daniel Janiga, M.D., Soo Line's medical director, are named as defendants to Count III. On October 16, 1998, defendants removed the case to federal court. They now bring a motion for partial summary judgment as to Count III and a motion to transfer venue.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Defendants move for partial summary judgment on Count III, which alleges that they "conspired to commit ... [an] extreme and outrageous pattern and campaign of harassment, threats and intimidation ... such that no reasonable man could be expected to endure such without suffering severe emotional distress, anxiety, and emotional upset." Count III also alleges that defendants' conduct constitutes "a violation of the Federal Employees Liability Act, Plaintiff's Civil Rights, ... the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other Federal and State laws." In his motion papers and at oral argument, however, Nelson has narrowed the focus of Count III to two legal theories: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (2) retaliation in violation of the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). The court will discuss each theory in turn.

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Nelson first argues that Count III is viable as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants contend, however, that any claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the allegations in his complaint is preempted by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"). Enacted with the goal of "promot[ing] stability in labor-management relations by providing a comprehensive framework for resolving labor disputes," Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994), the RLA mandates arbitration procedures for the "prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions." 45 U.S.C. § 151a. Under the RLA, disputes between railroads and their employees are classified as either "major" or "minor." See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 299, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989). Major disputes concern the creation of contractual rights, while minor disputes involve the enforcement of those rights. See Elgin J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723-24, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945). Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over employee claims determined to be minor disputes. See Norris, 512 U.S. at 253, 114 S.Ct. 2239 ("[Minor disputes] must be resolved only through the RLA mechanism, including the carrier's internal dispute-resolution processes and an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions."). Under the RLA, a claim will be deemed to be a minor dispute if its adjudication necessarily "involv[es] the interpretation or application of an existing labor agreement." Norris, 512 U.S. at 246, 114 S.Ct. 2239.

Applying these principles to the present case, the court concludes that Nelson's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a minor dispute over which the court lacks jurisdiction. Nelson's complaint revolves around (1) Soo Line's requirement that Nelson provide updated medical information, (2) Soo Line's investigation of Nelson's conduct, and (3) the hearing officer's decision to suspend Nelson based on his alleged failure to comply with the medical update requirement. Each of these events took place pursuant to terms of the CBA. Thus, any consideration of Nelson's claim would require the court to interpret the content and scope of the CBA provisions at issue and apply that interpretation to the facts underlying the claim. As the Seventh Circuit stated in a similar case, Bielicke v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n:

One cannot determine whether [the railroad] conducted the investigations for legitimate purposes under the collective bargaining agreements or if they abused the investigation procedures allowed by the collective bargaining agreements (e.g., by conducting impermissible investigations under the guise of policy) without focusing the case on the collective bargaining agreements themselves. As such the proper vehicle for pursuing the claim is the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

30 F.3d 877, 878 (7th Cir.1994); see also Fry v. Airline Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 88 F.3d 831, 836-37 (10th Cir.1996) (employee's emotional distress claims preempted by the RLA because alleged behavior by employer "inextricably bound up" with labor agreement); Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 698, 700 (8th Cir.1992) (employee's retaliation claim preempted when employer's actions are "at least arguably justified" by a provision in CBA). The conclusion in Bielicke and the other circuit court decisions applies with equal force to this case. Because adjudication of Nelson's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress would be intertwined with questions regarding the interpretation and application of the CBA, the claim is preempted.

2. Retaliation

In the alternative, Nelson argues that Count III is viable as a claim for retaliation pursuant to the FELA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 55 and 60.¹ As the Eighth Circuit has stated, however Congress has not enacted a statute prohibiting an employer from discharging an employee in retaliation for filing a FELA action. Given the availability to plaintiffs of recourse to the arbitration procedures established under the RLA, there is little reason for a federal court to imply a right of action where Congress has not acted to create one.

Landfried v. Terminal R.R. Assoc. of St. Louis, 721 F.2d 254, 256 (8th Cir.1983). Consistent with this observation, the Eighth Circuit has refused to recognize legal claims for retaliation under either 45 U.S.C. § 55, see id. ("[Section 55] does not provide a cause of action for an employee discharged in retaliation for filing a FELA action"), or 45 U.S.C. § 60, see Hornsby v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 963 F.2d 1130, 1133 (8th Cir.1992) ("[Section 60] does not create a private cause of action for compensatory damages."). To be sure, Hornsby stated that courts have "very narrow" equitable jurisdiction to "protect FELA witnesses from retaliation by their employers." Id. at 1132. However, Nelson does not invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction in Count III. Rather, he complains of "severe and permanent physical, emotional and mental injuries," pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earning, and loss of enjoyment. Nelson Comp. at ¶ XIV. The retaliation provisions of FELA simply do not support a legal claim of this kind.² Accordingly, the court will grant defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as to Count III and dismiss defendants Kuechle and Janiga from the case.

B. Motion to Transfer

Defendants have also brought a motion to transfer this case to North Dakota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) states: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." The purpose of transfer under 1404(a) is to "prevent the waste of `time, energy and money' and `to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'" Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. Barge F.B.L., 364 U.S. 19, 26, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960)). To prevail on a motion to transfer, the movant must show that his inconvenience substantially outweighs the inconvenience that plaintiff would suffer if venue were transferred. See Nelson v. Master Lease Corp., 759 F.Supp. 1397, 1401 (D.Minn.1991). While there is a general presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum, courts afford that choice significantly less deference...