Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co.
| Citation | 840 F.2d 254 |
| Decision Date | 29 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3597,87-3597 |
| Parties | 127 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2889, 108 Lab.Cas. P 10,336, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 477 Tiny J. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Neil Kuchinsky, Colonial Heights, Va., for plaintiff-appellant.
Eva Susan Tashjian-Brown (Maris Mahala Wicker, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Richard Van M. Krotseng, Reynolds Metals Co., Richmond, Va., on brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff brought a Virginia state court action claiming that her employer invaded her right to privacy, slandered her, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Reynolds Metals Co., the employer, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting that the plaintiff's attempts to recover for state tort causes of action were preempted by Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185. A motion to remand was denied, and Reynolds thereupon filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the applicable six month statute of limitations pursuant to Sec. 301 barred the plaintiff's claim. See DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2293, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The district court granted the motion for summary judgment.
Upon review of the case, it became clear that the employer's acts had merely been in exercise of its rights to control conditions in the working place. Another employee had complained that co-workers were harassing her by damaging her car in the company lot and sending anonymous cards to her home. An expert who was consulted by the employer concluded that the plaintiff's handwriting was remarkably similar to that of some of the harassing cards. There were two meetings between the defendant's personnel manager and the plaintiff. At the first meeting, the personnel manager of Reynolds accused the plaintiff of having been responsible for the harassment and confronted her with the results of the handwriting analysis. In the second meeting, the plaintiff's union representative was also present.
The plaintiff was shortly thereafter hospitalized for nerves due to conditions at work. She never filed a grievance through the applicable provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, but filed instead her suit. The collective bargaining agreement had a termination or lay-off clause. 1 The collective bargaining agreement also required that all complaints be adjusted through grievance and arbitration. Through collective bargaining, the union had been appointed as the exclusive representative of all the employees with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
While the well-pleaded complaint rule in general forecloses looking beyond the allegations of the complaint for a federal question to confer jurisdiction, there is an exception for situations where the complaint asserted can be resolved only by referring to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Tellez v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 817 F.2d 536, 537 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 251, 98 L.Ed.2d 209 (1987). See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Hechler, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 2163, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987). "Any other result would elevate form over substance and allow parties to evade the requirements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenfield v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc.
...from quid pro quo sexual harassment was not pre-empted because CBA could not lawfully authorize such complaint); Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co., 840 F.2d 254 (4th Cir.1988) (concluding intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was pre-empted). See also, DeCoe v. General Motors Corp.......
-
Ali v. Giant Food LLC/Stop and Shop Supermarket, No. DKC 2008-2117.
...preempted. (Paper 15, at 2). In the context of a § 301 case, the test set forth in Allis-Chalmers applies. See Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co., 840 F.2d 254, 255 (4th Cir.1988). Thus, the inquiry is, as noted above, whether evaluation of the state tort action is inextricably intertwined with ......
-
McCormick v. AT&T Technologies, Inc.
...v. Mensing, 849 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir.1988). In addition, our holding follows the prior decisions of this circuit in Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co., 840 F.2d 254 (4th Cir.1988), and Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp., 811 F.2d 253 (4th Cir.1987). In Willis we held preempted an employee's state l......
-
Carmack v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Civil Action No. 03-12488-PBS.
...and removal from workplace that occurred in accordance with CBA required interpretation of the CBA); Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co., 840 F.2d 254, 254-55 (4th Cir. 1988) (plaintiff's claim against employer for slander preempted because it arose in connection with employer's right under CBA t......