Pikop v. Burlington Northern R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 August 1986
• Docket Number: C4-85-1431,Nos. C7-84-1333,s. C7-84-1333
• Citation: 390 N.W.2d 743
• Parties: 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2030, 42 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1822, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,858, 55 USLW 2112, 105 Lab.Cas. P 55,613, 109 Lab.Cas. P 10,683, 1 IER Cases 564 Virginia PIKOP, Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, Clarence Patterson, et al., Defendants. and Romesh GULATI, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 743

390 N.W.2d 743

123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2030, 42 Fair

Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1822,

42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,858, 55 USLW 2112,

105 Lab.Cas. P 55,613, 109 Lab.Cas. P 10,683,

1 IER Cases 564

Virginia PIKOP, Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, Clarence Patterson, et al., Defendants. and Romesh GULATI, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, Appellant.

Nos. C7-84-1333, C4-85-1431.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 1, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

The Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-63 (1982), and the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1982), do not preempt a railway employee's state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the alleged distress results not from a wrongful discharge, but from a continual pattern of harassment on the part of the railroad-employer.

Michael P. McReynolds, Burlington Northern R. Co., St. Paul, for Burlington Northern R. Co., in No. C7-84-1333.

Robert Bennett, Daniel McInerny, Minneapolis, for Virginia Pikop.

Thomas P. Kane, Bethany K. Culp, St. Paul, for Burlington Northern R. Co., in No. C4-85-1431.

Michael Doshan, and Michael L. Weiner, Minneapolis, for Romesh Gulati.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument (C4-85-1431); heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc (C7-84-1333).

SCOTT, Justice.

Virginia Pikop and Romesh Gulati are former employees of Burlington Northern Railroad Company (Burlington Northern), who individually filed suit against the railroad in state court, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress. Burlington Northern contends that both suits are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-63 (1982), and/or the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1982). We conclude that the two federal acts do not preempt state-court jurisdiction over a former railway employee's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the alleged distress results from a continual pattern of harassment on the part of the railroad-employer. We therefore remand the two cases for trial in the respective district courts.

Pikop's claim.

From September 24 to November 25, 1981, Virginia Pikop was employed by Burlington Northern as a seasonal section-crew worker. At various times during this period, her direct supervisor allegedly forced her into his vehicle and coerced her, through threats and promises relating to her employment, to perform sexual acts against her will. Despite her complaints to Burlington Northern officials, Pikop's supervisor allegedly continued to sexually assault her, a pattern that allegedly persisted even after she was no longer employed by the railroad.

During the two months in which she was employed at Burlington Northern, Pikop was allegedly subjected to continual harassment by co-employees, who repeatedly called her "pig," "bitch," and "cunt." Several employees allegedly assaulted Pikop during working hours.

As a section-crew worker, Pikop was employed in railroad yards, where she often had contact with employees of the railroad's pest control program. Pikop alleges that these employees constantly threatened her with rat carcasses, repeatedly forced her to watch them torture and mutilate rats and birds, and occasionally coerced her to participate in the mutilation and torture. She maintains that railroad supervisors allowed this conduct on the part of her co-employees to take place repeatedly.

After Pikop was furloughed from her seasonal position with Burlington Northern, she sought psychiatric counseling. She claims that as a result of the alleged harassment and outrageous conduct on the part of the railroad and its employees, she has suffered serious and permanent emotional injuries.

Pikop first brought suit against Burlington Northern and four individual employees in Hennepin County District Court on November 17, 1982, alleging, inter alia, the intentional infliction of emotional distress. In its answer, Burlington Northern argued that the exclusive remedy for Pikop's claims was the FELA. As a result, Pikop voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, the complaint she filed in state court and brought suit against the railroad and the individual employees in federal district court on December 21, 1982. In addition to her FELA claim, Pikop sought to recover damages under state-law claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In federal court, Burlington Northern moved for summary judgment. The court granted Burlington Northern's motion on Pikop's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, ruling that Pikop's exclusive remedy against the railroad was under the FELA and that the FELA did not recognize an independent cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. ¹ The court allowed those claims that were actionable under the FELA to go to trial.

On March 18, 1985, Pikop brought suit against the railroad and three individual railway employees in Hennepin County District Court, alleging, inter alia, the intentional infliction of emotional distress. ² Thereafter, Burlington Northern moved to have Pikop's claim against it dismissed. On July 11, 1985, the district court ordered entry of judgment in favor of the railroad, ruling that Pikop's claim was preempted by the FELA. Pikop appealed to the court of appeals. Burlington Northern petitioned this court for an accelerated review. We granted the petition on December 13, 1985, and now reverse the district court. Gulati's claim.

In 1967, Romesh Gulati was hired as a Machinist Federal Inspector for Burlington Northern Railroad. In 1975, Gulati injured his hand during the course of his employment with the railroad. He brought suit on September 21, 1977, to recover damages under the FELA for lost wages and permanent disability of his hand. Burlington Northern settled Gulati's suit on March 10, 1980, agreeing to pay Gulati $47,250 and to allow Gulati to continue working as a machinist for the railroad company.

On July 31, 1980, Burlington Northern sent Gulati a notice that the company was investigating him for allegedly falsifying a time card. He was requested to appear at a hearing concerning this charge. Gulati maintained that he had pencilled on his card 6:30 p.m. as the time of his departure on July 28, 1980, and that a co-employee had erased this time and written, in its place, 11:00 p.m. Upon investigation, the railroad dropped the charge against Gulati. It did not, however, further investigate the matter, nor did it bring charges against the co-employee accused of forging Gulati's card.

On August 4, 1980, Burlington Northern sent another notice to Gulati, alleging that he had been involved in an altercation during working hours. He was once again requested to appear at an investigatory hearing. Gulati stated that without provocation a co-employee had sprayed him with a water hose and that he had immediately reported the actions of the co-employee to a supervisor. Burlington Northern dropped the rule-violation charge against Gulati. It did not, however, pursue any disciplinary action against the co-employee whom Gulati had named as the one who sprayed him with water.

During the summer of 1980, an employee of Burlington Northern witnessed two railway employees ransacking Gulati's personal locker. At the time Gulati's locker was allegedly being searched, Gulati was allegedly being detained by a railroad supervisor. The witness noted that the searching of lockers was not a common practice of railroad officials.

Gulati maintains that from March to September, 1980, he was continually subjected to racial slurs from employees of Burlington Northern. Such comments included: "Come over here, Indian," "That stinking Arab," "Where's your camel parked?" and "Does your camel have one hump or two?" One employee stated that he had heard Burlington Northern officials say, "We will get that S.O.B." (referring to Gulati) and, "Have you had any luck getting that S.O.B. 'cause I know you are trying?"

On September 5, 1980, Burlington Northern notified Gulati that the company was investigating him for allegedly leaving work one day without proper authorization. Gulati was requested to appear at an investigatory hearing. After the hearing, the railroad discharged Gulati for the unexcused absence. Gulati appealed this decision to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Public Law Board No. 3008, which voted 2-1 to uphold his permanent discharge from employment.

Six months after his discharge from Burlington Northern, on March 30, 1981, Gulati suffered a heart attack at the age of 40. After his discharge he also began consulting a psychiatrist.

Gulati filed suit against Burlington Northern in Hennepin County District Court on April 12, 1982. He alleged that Burlington Northern breached the 1980 settlement of his FELA claim; that the company wrongfully discharged him; and that it inflicted emotional distress on him through a pattern of harassment and surveillance. Burlington Northern petitioned to have Gulati's claims removed to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1982), a petition that was denied by the federal court on September 10, 1982. ³ Thereafter Burlington Northern moved for summary judgment in state court. The district court granted the railroad's motion on two of Gulati's claims, concluding that Gulati's wrongful-discharge and breach-of-contract claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act. The court, however, denied the railroad's motion to dismiss the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress on similar preemption grounds. Burlington Northern then petitioned the court to certify the preemption question to the Minnesota Court of Appeals under Rule 103.03(h) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. The court granted the motion and certified the following question, as...