Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03762/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03762-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MELKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Defendant

 /

No. C-07-3762 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s

(“BART”) “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action for Failure

to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (FRCP 12(b)(6),” filed July 30, 2007,

as amended August 17, 2007. Plaintiff Paul Melker has filed opposition, to which BART

has replied. Having considered the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to

the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the

hearing scheduled for September 21, 2007, and rules as follows:

1. The Third Cause of Action, alleging a claim for wrongful termination under state

law, is subject to dismissal; plaintiff “concedes” such claim is “bar[red]” by “governmental

immunity.” (See Pl.’s Opp., filed August 30, 2007, at 4:2-4.)

2. The Fourth Cause of Action, alleging a claim for breach of the implied covenant

Case 3:07-cv-03762-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of good faith and fair dealing, is subject to dismissal. Although plaintiff alleges the terms of

his employment are governed by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), any claim he

has for violation of the terms of said contract is governed by state law, because BART is

not subject to the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2)

(holding “employer” for purposes of LMRA does not include political subdivisions of state);

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 3d 153, 161

(1979) (holding BART, as political subdivision of State of California, is exempt from LMRA). 

Under state law, “public employment is held not by contract, but by statute,” even where

the terms of employment are governed by a CBA, and, consequently, a state employee is

limited to those remedies available under “statute or ordinance.” See Kim v. Regents of the

University of California, 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 163-65 (2000) (holding’s public employee’s

claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, predicated on theory she

was entitled to overtime in light of provisions in CBA, properly dismissed; observing

employee’s remedies limited to those “provided by statute or ordinance”).

3. The Fifth Cause of Action, alleging a claim for breach of contract, is subject to

dismissal. As noted, plaintiff cannot seek a remedy for breach of the CBA, but, rather, is

limited to remedies available under statute or ordinance. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, BART’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action are DISMISSED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03762-MMC Document 24 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2