Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05261/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05261-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMI GREENWALD, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE BOHEMIAN CLUB, INC., ALBERT

BOWEN, RICHARD BRANDENBURG,

DAN CAMPBELL, and DOES 1 THROUGH

99, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05261 WHA

ORDER RE RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

REMOVAL

In this employment-discrimination and sexual harassment action, defendants removed

this action based on federal-question jurisdiction. Specifically, they argued that resolution of

certain of plaintiffs’ claims would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement,

so these claims would be preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations

Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. Defendants were asked to show cause regarding whether this Court has

jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, at least for now, this Court has jurisdiction over this

action. 

***

Plaintiff Tami Greenwald was employed by defendant The Bohemian Club as a cook

(Compl. ¶ 7). All terms and conditions of her employment were governed by a collective

bargaining agreement between The Bohemian Club and her union, UNITE HERE, Local 2

Case 3:07-cv-05261-WHA Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(Oggero Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A). The agreement provided that “[t]he employer may discipline,

suspend, or discharge an employee only for just cause” (id. at § 9). 

Plaintiff filed this action in state court on August 6, 2007. She alleged a number of

claims against defendants The Bohemian Club, Albert Bowen, Richard Brandenburg, and Dan

Campbell. Her seventh and eighth claims were for breach of implied-in-fact contract and for

breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In her complaint, plaintiff refers to

the existence of an employment agreement. Defendants The Bohemian Club and Dan Campbell

were served on September 18 and 19, 2007. They timely removed on October 16, 2007. This

Court issued and order to show cause why this action should not be remanded on November 8,

2007. Both parties were given an opportunity to respond, but only defendants did so. 

***

Defendants removed this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations

Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. Section 301 preempts only state-law “claims founded directly on rights

created by collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims substantially dependent on

analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways Inc., 255

F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). This is to ensure uniform interpretation of collectivebargaining agreements and to promote the federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes. 

Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Complaints by employees covered by a collective-bargaining agreement are not preempted if

their claims are unrelated to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement. Cramer, 255

F.3d at 683. 

Here, defendants argue that plaintiff’s seventh and eighth claims are actually contract

claims based on the collective bargaining agreement. Section 301 generally preempts

employment tort claims where the collective bargaining agreement provided similar measures

for job security as the tort claims. Young v. Anthony’s Fish Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 999

(9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, a plaintiff cannot evade the preemptive effect of Section 301 by

recasting contract claims as tort claims. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220

(1985). 

Case 3:07-cv-05261-WHA Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Plaintiff alleges that her implied-in-fact employment contract was breached when

defendants constructively discharged her. Here, the collective bargaining agreement provides

that plaintiff could not be discharged except for good cause. She also alleges that she was

denied work opportunities owed her under the contract, and these work opportunities are

governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant has shown, at least for now, that

the resolution of this action will require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05261-WHA Document 13 Filed 11/16/07 Page 3 of 3