Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc.

Decision Date11 December 1985
Docket NumberNo. C-4064,C-4064
Citation702 S.W.2d 183
Parties122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2798, 104 Lab.Cas. P 55,571, 1 IER Cases 936 Amalia C. RUIZ, Petitioner, v. MILLER CURTAIN COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Rodolfo R. Munoz, San Antonio, Laron D. Robinson, Houston, for petitioner.

Manitzas, Harris & Padgett, Shelton E. Padgett and J. Tullos Wells, San Antonio, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Justice.

Amalia Ruiz was fired from her job at Miller Curtain Company after filing a claim for workers' compensation. Ruiz then sued Miller Curtain for wrongful discharge under article 8307c, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Article 8307c prohibits an employer from firing an employee in retaliation for filing a claim for workers' compensation. 1 Ruiz also alleged her termination was a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (1982).

Miller Curtain removed the case to federal court. The federal court dismissed the section 1985 complaint for lack of a factual or legal basis and remanded the cause to the state court for disposition of the article 8307c claim.

In the state court Miller Curtain moved to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction, asserting Ruiz' article 8307c cause of action is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and rendered judgment that Ruiz take nothing. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. 686 S.W.2d 671. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

The issue before this court is whether an employee's state cause of action for wrongful discharge against an employer doing business in interstate commerce is preempted by sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 158 (1982). It is undisputed that Miller Curtain conducts business affecting interstate commerce and is therefore subject to regulation under the NLRA. Section 7 of the NLRA provides:

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities....

29 U.S.C. § 157 (1982). Section 8 of the NLRA provides in part:

(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157....

Id. § 158(a)(1). Ruiz was not a member of a labor union during her employment at Miller Curtain, nor were Miller Curtain and its employees parties to any kind of collective bargaining agreement.

The preemption doctrine originated from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, article VI. The clause mandates that federal law occupying a particular area will supercede or preempt state regulation in that area. Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S. 1, 58 S.Ct. 87, 82 L.Ed. 3 (1937). There is no precise formula to determine whether the state's regulation has been preempted. Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, 348 U.S. 468, 75 S.Ct. 480, 99 L.Ed. 546 (1955).

In determining whether a state cause of action is preempted by federal regulation under the NLRA, the United States Supreme Court stated, "State regulations and causes of action are presumptively preempted if they concern conduct that is actually or arguably either prohibited or protected by the Act." San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959). However, the court added, the State regulation may be sustained if the conduct regulated is "of only peripheral concern to the federal law or touches interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility." Id. at 236, 79 S.Ct. at 773. This has become known as the Garmon doctrine.

For the 8307c cause of action to be preempted, the filing of a worker's compensation claim must be at least "arguably" protected by the NLRA under Garmon. Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA protect a worker's right to engage in self-organization, to bargain collectively, and to engage in "other concerted activities" for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Amalia Ruiz was not in a labor union and no collective bargaining agreement existed. Thus, the only way her state claim can be preempted by the NLRA is if the Texas statute attempts to protect the kind of "concerted activity" referred to in section 7. We hold that filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits does not constitute the type of "concerted activity" contemplated by the NLRA. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. v. NLRB, 635 F.2d 304 (4th Cir.1980). Therefore, Ruiz' cause of action under article 8307c is not preempted by federal law.

Even if the concept of "concerted activity" could be so broadly construed as to encompass an individual employee's workers' compensation claim, the 8307c cause of action would not fall under the preemption doctrine. The action taken by Ruiz which the state statute protects is neither actually nor arguably subject to the NLRA.

"The Supreme Court has discouraged the inflexible application of the Garmon doctrine, especially where the state has a substantial interest in regulation of the conduct at issue and the state's interest is one that does not threaten undue interference with the federal regulatory scheme." Peabody-Galion v. Dollar, 666 F.2d 1309 (10th Cir.1981) (citing Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977)).

Furthermore, the court has recognized exceptions to the Garmon preemption rule. A state statute otherwise within the scope of Garmon will not be preempted if the conduct it attempts to regulate is merely a peripheral concern of the NLRA, nor will preemption occur if the statute touches interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, it could not be inferred that Congress has deprived the states of the power to act. Peabody-Galion, 666 F.2d at 1317 (citing Garmon, 359 U.S. at 243-44, 79 S.Ct. at 779).

Article 8307c is intended to protect the state scheme of workmens' compensation. The states have traditionally enacted and regulated their own respective workers' compensation systems. Nothing in the NLRA or other federal legislation indicates that Congress has taken away the states' Tenth Amendment power to regulate in this area. "Workmen's compensation is preeminently a matter of state concern." Peabody-Galion, 666 F.2d at 1317. The state statutes designed to further the workers' compensation system touch interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility. Absent compelling congressional direction we cannot infer that Congress has deprived the states of the power to act in this area.

Moreover, the conduct regulated by article 8307c is at most a merely peripheral concern of the NLRA. The central purpose of the NLRA is to promote the organization of unions and to provide unions with an atmosphere of freedom to organize and bargain collectively. Id. at 1313. The Texas workers' compensation system has nothing to do with union activity or collective bargaining. We see very little likelihood that the Texas scheme will interfere with the policies or workings of the federal statute.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dealt with the question of NLRA preemption of an Oklahoma statute similar to 8307c. Id. at 1313. However, the plaintiff in that case was a union member and the union was bound by a collective bargaining agreement. Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit held the employee's state cause of action for retaliatory discharge, sounding in tort, was not preempted by the federal labor statute. The court stated, "It is inconceivable that there would be state court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • 9 Marzo 1989
    ...(S.D.N.Y.1982). The Texas Supreme Court has specifically ruled that article 8307c does not run afoul of Garmon. Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., 702 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex.1985). In light of these authorities, this Court holds that federal labor law does not pre-empt article Case Remanded. 1 As a ......
  • Henry v. Laborers' Local 1191. Ramsey
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 5 Mayo 2014
    ...preempted by the NLRA, excepting only wrongful discharge for exercising rights under workers' compensation law); Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex., 1985). 48. Indeed, in some of these cases, the state's interests may be considered deeply rooted. 49. Cf. Sears, 436 U.S. ......
  • Jones v. Roadway Exp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 29 Mayo 1991
    ...with Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988), and with Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1004, 106 S.Ct. 3295, 92 L.Ed.2d 710 (1986). Id. In Lingle, the United States Supreme Court held that s......
  • Intern. Broth. of Elec v. Becdon Const.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 10 Abril 2003
    ...Congress has deprived the States of the power to act. See Garmon, 359 U.S. at 243-44, 79 S.Ct. 773. Accord Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., 702 S.W.2d 183, 184-85 (Tex.1985). As an example of the latter situation, the Garmon court cites Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 355 U.S. 131, 78 S.Ct. 206, 2 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2017 Part VI. Workplace Torts
    • 19 Agosto 2017
    ...., 921 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Tex. 1996) (the presumption in Chapter 451 case is against 301 pre-emption); Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc ., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1985) (state claim was not preempted). The case of Graef v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, 860 F. Supp. 1170 (E.D. Tex. 1994) illustrat......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • 16 Agosto 2014
    ...Ruiz v. City of San Antonio , 966 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.), §§34:2.A.1, 34:2.A.1.b Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc ., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1985), §31:4.E Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp ., 162 Cal. App. 3d 241 (Cal. App. 1984), §28:9.F.3 Rumler v. Dep......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • 27 Julio 2016
    ...Ruiz v. City of San Antonio , 966 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.), §§34:2.A.1, 34:2.A.1.b Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc ., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1985), §31:4.E Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp ., 162 Cal. App. 3d 241 (Cal. App. 1984), §28:9.F.3 Rumler v. Dep......
  • Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part VI. Workplace torts
    • 5 Mayo 2018
    ...., 921 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Tex. 1996) (the presumption in Chapter 451 case is against 301 pre-emption); Ruiz v. Miller Curtain Co., Inc ., 702 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1985) (state claim was not preempted). The case of Graef v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, 860 F. Supp. 1170 (E.D. Tex. 1994) illustrat......
  • 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