RLA Does Not Preempt State Family Leave Law: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

RLA Does Not Preempt State Family Leave Law: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

In Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) does not preempt an employee's sick leave law complaint alleging a violation of Washington's Family Care Act because the employee's state law claim did not arise entirely from or require construction of the employee's collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

RLA Does Not Preempt State Family Leave Law: Ninth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update w-016-1265 (Approx. 5 pages)

RLA Does Not Preempt State Family Leave Law: Ninth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 06 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) does not preempt an employee's sick leave law complaint alleging a violation of Washington's Family Care Act because the employee's state law claim did not arise entirely from or require construction of the employee's collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
On August 1, 2018, in Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Shurke, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) does not preempt a Washington Family Care Act complaint an employee filed with the State of Washington Department of Labor (Washington DOL) because the employee's state law claim did not arise entirely from or require construction of the employee's collective bargaining agreement (CBA). ( (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018).)

Background

Laura Masserant, a flight attendant for Alaska Airlines, asked for time off to care for her sick child. Masserant had no sick days left under the terms of the CBA between her employer and the union which represented her. As a result, she asked to use accrued vacation leave. Alaska Airlines did not allow her to reschedule her vacation leave to cover the sick leave request.
Masserant subsequently filed an administrative complaint with the Washington DOL. 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 Masserant 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 Masserant 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 denied Alaska Airlines' motion for summary judgment on its preemption claim. Alaska Airlines appealed to the Ninth Circuit. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, holding that RLA preemption did apply. For more information on this decision, see Legal Update, RLA Preempts Employee's Washington State DOL Sick Leave Complaint: Ninth Circuit.
Subsequently, a majority of nonrecused active judges voted for en banc rehearing under FRCP 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3 (869 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2017)).

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit sitting en banc:
  • Reviewed de novo the district court's conclusion that RLA preemption does not apply.
  • Affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that:
    • RLA preemption only applies where a state law claim arises entirely from or requires construction of a CBA; and
    • neither condition applied here, and, therefore, the RLA did not preempt the state law claim.
The Ninth Circuit noted that:
  • There is a two-part inquiry into the nature of a plaintiff's claims. The court must examine:
    • the legal character of the claim by asking whether it seeks to purely vindicate a right or duty created by the CBA itself; and
    • whether litigating the state law claim requires interpretation of a CBA, such that resolving the entire claim in court threatens the proper role of grievance and arbitration.
    • Applying this approach to RLA preemption, the Ninth Circuit found that Masserant's claim:
  • Did not arise entirely from the CBA because:
    • Masserant alleged a violation of the WFCA's independent state law right to use banked vacation days; and
    • this claim invoked a state law right that applied to all state workers, whether covered by a CBA or not, and gave rise to a state law dispute.
  • Did not require construction of the CBA because reliance on and reference to the CBA did not make for a CBA dispute. Here, there was not no disagreement about the meaning or application of any relevant CBA term, even though:
    • the claim relied on the terms and conditions of the employment established by the CBA; and
    • the claim would be aided by reference to the CBA..
The Ninth Circuit concluded that:
  • The requisites of RLA preemption did not exist.
  • Masserant was entitled to pursue her state law remedies, if any, before the state agency and in state courts, as state law provided.
The dissent argued that Masserant's claim was preempted by the RLA because in order for Masserant to plead a WFCA claim, she had to show that she was entitled to paid time off under the terms of her CBA, and this required interpretation and application of the CBA.

Practical Implications

With its most recent decision in Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, the Ninth Circuit has now held that the RLA does not preempt an employee's state law claim under the WFCA. The court found that preemption is only appropriate where the state law claim arises entirely from or requires construction of a CBA. This decision demonstrates how the Ninth Circuit applies its preemption standard in the context of the RLA and should guide parties when making or responding to preemption arguments regarding other state law claims.