Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
RLA Preempts Employee's Washington State DOL Sick Leave Complaint: Ninth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update w-005-6669 (Approx. 5 pages)
RLA Preempts Employee's Washington State DOL Sick Leave Complaint: Ninth Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Law stated as of 01 Aug 2018 • USA (National/Federal), Washington |
In Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempted an employee's sick leave complaint with the State of Washington Department of Labor (Washington DOL) because the employee's state law right was conditioned on her entitlement to paid time off under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
On January 25, 2017, in Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Shurke, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempted an employee's complaint with the State of Washington Department of Labor (Washington DOL) that she was entitled to reschedule vacation leave to care for her sick child. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the RLA preempted the employee's claim because her state law administrative claim was conditioned on her entitlement to paid time off under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Therefore, the employee was required to use the CBA's grievance procedure rather than file an administrative complaint with the Washington DOL.
Background
The incident underlying the employee's complaint began when the employee called in sick to care for her sick child. She did not have any remaining sick time under the terms of the CBA between her employer, Alaska Airlines, and the union which represented her. However, she did have previously scheduled vacation leave. Alaska Airlines did not allow her to reschedule her vacation leave to cover the sick leave request.
The employee and the union filed an administrative complaint with the Washington DOL claiming that she was entitled to use her previously scheduled vacation leave to cover the sick leave request. The complaint was based on the Washington Family Care Act (WFCA), which provides that an employee may use paid time off to care for a sick child if the employee is entitled to paid time off under the terms of a CBA (Wash. Rev. Code § 49.12.270(1)). The Washington DOL determined that the employee was entitled to reschedule her vacation leave to cover the sick leave request and fined Alaska Airlines $200 for violating the statute.
Alaska Airlines then filed an action in federal district court claiming that the employee was required to use the CBA's grievance procedure rather than file an administrative complaint with the Washington DOL because her state law rights were preempted by the RLA. The district court granted summary judgment against Alaska Airlines on its preemption claim. Alaska Airlines appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Outcome
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and held that:
- An employee's rights under the WFCA are preempted by the RLA because they are conditioned on the employee being entitled to paid time off under the terms of a CBA or applicable employer policy.
- The employee was required to use the CBA's grievance procedure rather than file an administrative complaint with the Washington DOL.
The Ninth Circuit reasoned that:
- The RLA preempts disputes about the interpretation or application of a CBA and requires them to be adjusted through the CBA's grievance procedure (45 U.S.C. § 151a(5)).
- The Supreme Court has carved out an exception for state law claims that are independent of a CBA (Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988)).
- The Supreme Court has elaborated on the scope of this exception by holding that:
- nonnegotiable rights under state law are not preempted even if the dispute can been adjusted through a CBA's grievance procedure (Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123 (1994)); and
- state law claims that depend on the interpretation of a CBA are preempted, while state law claims that can be resolved without interpreting a CBA are not preempted (Hawaiian Airlines v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 262 (1994)).
- The Ninth Circuit has developed a three-part test to determine if a state law claim is sufficiently independent from a CBA to avoid preemption. Under this test, a state law claim is preempted if:
- the CBA's provisions govern the actions giving rise to the claim; and
- the state has not articulated a standard sufficiently clear that the claim can be evaluated without considering the relevant CBA provision; or
- the state has not shown an intent not to allow the claim to be altered by private contract.
- The Ninth Circuit has also held that a claim is preempted if it exists solely as a result of the CBA (Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007).
- Under the WFCA, an employee has the right to use paid time off to care for a sick child only "if, under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or employer policy applicable to an employee, the employee is entitled to sick leave or other paid time off" (Wash. Rev. Code § 49.12.270(1)).
- An employee's rights under the WFCA are preempted because they are "substantially dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agreement" (Burnside, 491 F.3d at 1059).
In dissent, Judge Christen argued that the employee's claim was not preempted by the RLA because the employee's rights under the WFCE exist, if at all, by virtue of state law and are not substantially dependent on an analysis of the CBA.
Practical Implications
The Ninth Circuit recently clarified its preemption standard in the context of the Labor Management Relations Act and Oregon wage payment and deduction laws (Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016); see Legal Update, Ninth Circuit Clarifies Parameters for Preemption Analysis Under Section of LMRA). Alaska Airlines demonstrates how the Ninth Circuit applies its preemption standard in the context of the RLA.
The language of the WFCA, which provides that an employee may use paid time off to care for a sick child if the employee is entitled to paid time off under the terms of a CBA, would seem to cause nearly any leave claim under the law by a union-represented employee to be preempted.
UPDATE
On August 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed its earlier decision and ruled that the RLA does not preempt the employee’s state law claim with the Washington DOL. (Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018).) For more information on this decision, see Legal Update, RLA Does Not Preempt State Family Leave Law: Ninth Circuit.