## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1129 C ONSTANCE H UGHES, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
U NI T ED A IR L INE S, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C6558

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Ju dge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 11, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 8, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd C UDAH Ya nd P OSNER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Unite d A i r Lines r ecal l ed fligh t a tt en d an t C on st an c e H u gh es from fu rlou gh in O c t o b e r 2 0 0 4
. P h y s i c a l l y u n ab l e t o w o r k, s h e c o mm enced a m edi call eave . The co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent b etween U ni ted and the fl i ght a tte nd ants’ uni on perm i ts w or ker s t o re tain seni or i ty f orthr ee yea rs o f2 N o. 10

- 1129 i nj ury ori l l ness. W hen thatt im e was al m ostup, U ni ted told H ug he s tha t she m us t rep ort to du ty. T he airli ne ’s p h ys icia n cle ar ed h er for w or k. Sh e c om p let ed req u alifi ca ti o n t r aini ng . But, a cc o r d ing to Hughe s, l es s th ana wee kb efo r e he r fi r stfl i g hta ss i g nm en t, s he s li pped an d fel l at U nited ’s trai nin g facil ity, sufferi ng a new i njury so seve re thatshe coul d not fl y. U n ite d then ended her em plo ym ent. H ughes s ays thatthi s co nsti tuted r et a l i a t i o n f o r the wo r k e r s ’ c o mp ensa t i o n c l a i m s he ma de on ac cou nt of th e new i njury; for its pa r t, how ever, Uni t e d c ha r a c t e r i z e s the t e r mi na t i o n a s a r o ut i ne a pp licat i on o fthe col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent’ s l i m it on how l ong an i nacti ve em plo yee can re tain seni or i ty. H ug h es sued i n a s tat e co urt ofI l l i noi s, wh i ch tr eat s a s tor ti ous a ny m ate ri al l y a dvers e r esponse to a w or ker s’ com p en sation claim

. See 820 I L C S 3 0 5/4(h); Ke l s ay v . M ot orol a, Inc ., 74 Il l. 2d 17 2, 38 4 N .E .2d 35 3 (1 97 8); Cle m ons v. M e c ha n i c al De vi c e s Co
. , 18 4 I l l

. 2d 328, 70 4 N
. E.2 d 403 (1998). U nited rem oved the p r oceed ing to federal cou rt un de r the fe de r a l

- qu e s t i o n j ur i s di c t i o n. S e e 2 8 U. S
. C. §§ 1331 , 14 41(b ). Hu ghes’ s co m pla i nt r est s e nti re l y o n sta te sta tutes a n d d ecis i ons; i t doe s no t m enti on federa l law . U n ite d co n te n d ed , ho w ev er , th at fram in g a cla im u n d er st at e la w is im p os sib le

— th at the Rai l w ay Labor A ct, wh i ch despi te i ts nam e a l so appli es to l aborr el atio n s o f airlin es , so oc c u p i e s t h e field th at st at e la w is “co m ple tel y pr eem p ted ” a nd thatany cl ai m m ust r est o n fe d e r a ll a w. “Co mpl e t e p r e e mpt i o n” i s a mi s l e a di ng l y n a med doctr in e t h at ap p lies to su bj ec ts ov er w h ich fed er al la w isN o. 10

- 1129 3

so perva si ve that i t i s i m possibl e t o m ake o ut a sta tel aw cl ai m , no m att er how car eful the ple ading . Severa l b r a nc he s o fl ab or - r e l a t i o ns l a w c o me wi thin thi s de s c r i ptio n . See , e.g., Avco Corp
. v. M a ch i ni s t s U ni on , 390 U
. S. 557 ( 1968 )
. Pre em pti on nor m al l y i s a defe nse, wh i ch m us t be p lead ed and establ is h e d in th e cou rt w he re the l i ti gat i on be gan. But “co m ple te preem pti on ” is not a defense. It m eans that the c l ai m i tse l far i ses under federa ll aw . S ee Fran ch i s eTax Boar d v
. Cons t r uc t i on La bo r e r s Va ca tio n Trust, 463 U .S. 1 (19 83 ); Le hm ann v. Br own , 2 3 0 F
. 3 d 9 1 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. I f“ c o mpl e t e p r e e mpti on” appli es to H u gh es’s r eta l i ato ry - disc harg e s uit, th en U nited w as e n t it led to rem ove it; bu t ifU nited ’s ar gu m en t is a sp ec ies of ord in ar y p r e e m p tio n, th en all i t has i s a defense that m ust be a ss er te d i n sta te cour t, u n les s t h e d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion su p p or ts rem ov al. Graf v . Elgi n , Jol i e t& Eas t e r n Ry
. , 790 F.2 d 1341 (7th Cir. 1986 ) , hol ds that a re tal i ato ry - disc harg e s uitag ai nst a n e mp l o y e r g o v e r ne d b y th e R a i l wa y L ab o r A c ti s c o mp l e t e l y p r ee mpt e d , a l l o wi n gr e mo v a l

. We g a v e t wo p r i n c i p a lr e as o n s . F i r s t, th e R L A e s t ab l i s h e s i t s o wn m etho d ofadj ud i cati on f orcl ai m s that co ncer n ap pli cati on o fa col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. 45 U
. S. C. §§ 151a, 18 4. Thi s m etho d, whi chr equi r es di spu te s aboutthe m eani ng o r appli cati on o fa l aborag re em ent t o be s ubm i tte d to a s yst em s boar d o f adj ustm ent, i s incom patibl e, w e t h ou gh t, w ith st at e-c ou rtlitiga ti o n w h os e d isp os iti on co uld wel l d ep end on the m eani ng o fa col l ecti ve bar gaininga g r e e men t
. 7 9 0 F
. 2 d a t1 3 4 4

–4 5
. S e c o nd , we n o t e d tha ta pp e l l a t e a utho r i t y s t r o ng l y f a v o r e d a com ple te- preem pti on a pp ro ach. A l though we conce ded4 N o. 10

- 1129 th a tth e fi r s tr e a s o n o n i ts ownwa s i n c o n c l u s i v e , we thought i t inapp ro p riate to cre ate a confl i ct. Id

. at13 46. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d tha t G raf c o nt r o l s an d denie d H ughes’ s m oti on t o re m and. 675 F. S u p p . 2d 90 7 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 09)
. The co u rtthen dism i sse d the s uit, r ul i ngtha to nly a n adj us t men tb o a r d c a n pr o v i de H ughes with a r em edy. H u gh es as ks u s t o ov er ru le Gr af , a nd we concl ud e that thi s i s the appropr i ate co urse . Exp l ai ni ng wh y r equi re s a b rie f tur n fro m the Rai l w ay LaborA ct t o othe r parts o fl ab o r l a w. N ot l ong afterGr af

, we ex te nde d i ts ho l di ngthr o ug ho utl ab o r-rel at i o ns l aw, c o nc l udi ngi n Li ngl ev. Norge D i vi s i on of

M agi c Che

f , Inc . , 82 3 F
. 2d 1031 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) ( en banc) , thatthe Labor

- M anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct c om p let ely p re em p ts r et alia to ry -d isc h ar ge cla im s n om inal l y b ased o n sta te l aw . A s with Gr af and H ug he s’s c laim , th e s t a t e la w in q u es tio n w as th e ru le in Il lin ois that prohibi ts re tal i ati on a gainst work er s wh o exer ci se thei r l ega lr em edi es aga i nst e m plo yer s. O u r deci si on ha d a s ho r tl i fe , howev e r . T he S up r e me Co ur tr e v e r s e d, 486 U
. S. 39 9 ( 198 8), hol ding that a r eta l i ato ry - disc harg e sui t r est i ng o n sta te l aw i s a r ealst ate
- l aw cla im , not a federa lcl ai m i n dis gui se. The J ustice s co ncl ud ed that a retal i ato ry - disc harg e cl ai m i s pre em pted i fi t ca nnot be r es o l ve d wi thout co ns trui nga c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng agr eem ent, but thi s i s nor m al preem pti on

— th at is, a defe nse t o be a sse rt ed i n the or i gi nalf or um r ather than a ru le th at th e c laim its e lf m u st res t o n fed er al la w . I t is eas y to see how a re tal i ato ry - disc harg e cl ai m co u ld beN o. 10

- 1129 5

r e s o l v e d wi tho utr e fe r ence t o a l ab o r a g r e e men t
. S up po s e a fl i g ht a t t e nd a nt a s s e r t e d tha t the r e a s o n s he was sa ck ed was a wor k er s’ c o m pensat i o n c l ai m , whi l e th e empl o y era ss er te d tha t th e r ea son was the fl i g hta tt en dant’s f ailure t o gi ve passenge rs the re quir ed safety bri efi ng. The questi on f or deci si on w oul d b e w h o w as tel l i ng the tr u th, notwh at a co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re emen tp r o v i de d. T h e Su p re m e C ou r t ’ s d ec isio n inLinglepul l s th e r ug out fro m under Gr af , unle ss som e m ate ri aldi ffer ence between the Rai l w ay LaborA ct a nd the Labor-M an age m ent Rel ati ons A ct m ake s Lingle ’s a p p ro ac h ina p p lica b le t o th e R L A. Haw aiia n A ir li nes, Inc. v. Norris , 51 2 U.S
. 24 6 (19 9 4 ) , c on sid er ed th at p os sib ility . N or ris , a m ec h an ic d ischa rged after he had refused t o sign an aircraft’s m aint en an ce r ec o r d, su ed unde r st at e l aw , c o nt en di ng th a tthe r e a lr e a s o n f o r the di s c ha r g e wa s h i s i ns i s t e nc e that the a i r car ri eruse p ro p erm ai ntenance proce du re s. The Court fi rs t held that a cl ai m r est i ng ent i re l y o n state l aw need not be resolved by an ad j u s t m e n t board un d er the R L A ; i ns tead , the op inion state s, “th e categ ory ofm i nordi sputes c onte m pla ted by[ 45 U .S.C. ] §1 51a ar e th o se tha t ar e g r o unde d i n” a c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng agr eem ent, 51 2 U.S
. at25 6, and that the RLA ’ s pro cedure s do “not pre- em pt cause s o fact i on t o enf or ce r i g ht s tha ta r e i nd e pe nd e nto fthe CB A
. ” Ib id

. Hawaii an A irlines w en t o n t o a p p ly Lingleto the RL A , st ating, id

. at 26 0 , t h a t “ [t]h e p re -em p tio n st an d ar d

. . . — that a s tat elaw ca u se of ac tio n is n otp re -em p te d by th e R L A if it i nvol ves ri ghts and obl i gation s that e xi st i nd ependent of the CB A

— i s v i rtual l y i denti calto the pre- em pti on6 N o. 10

- 1129 sta nd ar d the Courtem ploys i n case s invol vi ng §3 01 of the Labo r- M anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct”, 29 U
. S. C. §1 85. Linglehel d that a r etaliator y- disc harg e cl ai m under I l l i noi s l aw “invol ves ri ghts an d obl i gat i ons that exi st i nde pen den t o fthe CBA”. 5 12 U. S
. a t 26 0. Put tingLingle tog etherwithHawaii an Air l i nes m ea ns tha tthe R LA does not com ple tel y pr eem pt r eta liat or y- disc harg e sui ts. Thi s l eave s Gr af witho ut support. Si nce Ha w a iia n A irlines , we have deci ded two r eta l i ato ry disc harg e s uit s agai nst e m plo yer s co ver ed by the Rai l w ay LaborA ct. The fi rs t o fthes e, We s t b r o o k v . S ky Ch e f s , Inc ., 35 F. 3d 316 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , co ncl ud ed that the sta te- l aw c l ai m w as i nd e pe nd e nto fthe CB A a nd n o tp r e e mpt e d, c o mpl e t e l y oro the r wi s e . T he s e c o nd , M o nro e v. M issou ri Pac i f i cR. R. , 11 5 F
. 3d 514 ( 7th C i r. 1997) , h el d that the st ate
l aw c l ai m c o ul d no t be r es o l ve d wi th o utc o ns trui ng the CBA and th us w as preem pted. N ei therdeci si on m enti oned Gr af

; l ike ly th e litig an ts an d ju d g e s a ll ass um ed thatGr af

di d not s urvi ve Ha w a iia n A irlines

. We s t b r ookwas r emov ed underthe di ve r si tyj ur i sdi ct i o n, s o the c ho i c e b e t we e n no r mal a nd c o mpl e t e pr eemptio n d id n otm at te r. T h e p an el in M onroedi d n o tsa y w hetherthe sui t had been r em ove d und erthe dive rs i ty j ur i s di c t i o n o r the fede r a l

- qu e s t i o n j ur i s di c t i o n; p e r ha ps the par ti es did notm ake anythi ng o fthatdi ffer ence. This l eads Un i ted to co ntend th at M onroem us t be un d ersto od as a co m ple te- preem pti on ca se and thatGraf th erefor e re ta in s v ita lity . Ye t t h e a b se n c e o f a d isc u ss ion is j ust si l ence. Even w hen the i ssue concerns subj ectm att erj uri sdic ti on, a topi c pass ed ove r w i thout disc uss i o n ha s n o tb e e n re s o l v e d. Steel C o . v. Citi z ens fo r aN o. 10

- 1129 7 Bet t e rEnvi r onment, 523 U
. S. 83, 91 (1998); U nited Sta tes v. L. A. Tuc ke rTr uc k L i ne s , Inc ., 3 4 4 U
. S. 33, 37–3 8 (1952). M onroedi d not ho l d that th e R LA co m ple tel y pr eem pts an y categ ory of state -l aw clai m s; it held o n ly th at a p arti cul arcl ai m was pree m pted und erthe approach of Linglea nd Ha w a iia n A irlines

. T h e t h re e o t h er circ u its th at h av e c on sid er ed th is su bj ect si nce Ha w a iia n A irlines ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t th e RL A does notco m ple tel y pr eem pt r eta l i ato ry - disc harg e c laim s u n d er st at e la w . M o o r e - Tho m a s v. A la ska A irlines, Inc ., 55 3 F .3d 12 41 , 12 44 (9t h C ir. 20 09 ); Sul l i van v. Am e r i ca n Air l i ne s , Inc ., 4 2 4 F.3d 26 7, 27 7 (2 d C ir. 20 05 ); Ged de s v. Am e r i ca n Ai r l i ne s , Inc . , 3 21 F.3d 13 49 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 3)
. To the e xtent these deci si ons re st on a bel i efthatco m ple te p re em p tio n i s p os sib le on ly w h en fed er al c ou rt s s u p p ly a re m ed y, w e a re sk ep tic al. M u c h co n d u c t th at is ar guabl y f o rbi ddena s anunf ai r l abo r pr ac ti ce b y the N ati onalLaborRelat ions A ct, o r ar guabl y pr ote cted by that sta tute, i s co ver ed by the c om ple te- preem pti on d oc tr i ne. S ee gener al l y S e a rs , R o e b u c k& C o . v . S a n Di ego C o un cil o

f C a rpen ters , 43 6 U.S
. 18 0 ( 1978). Yet federa l cou r t s do n o te nt e r t a i n s ui t s ab o utu nf a i r l ab o r p r act i c e s ; o nly the Na ti o na lLab o r R e l a t i o ns Bo a r d c a n a dj u d ica te d isp u te s u n d er se c tio n s 7or 8 o ft h e N L R A . A sui t a lleg in g an unfai r l aborprac ti ce fi l ed i n sta te cour t, and rem ove d to federa lco urt, wil lbe dism i sse d rather th a n r e s o l v e d o n th e me r i t s . T h i s e s t ab l i s h e s th a tc o mpl et e pr ee m pti o n d oes notde pen d o n the abi l i tyo fthe f ede r a lc o ur t s t o s up pl y a r e med y . Bu ti ti s u nn e cessa r y t o a g r ee o r di sa g r ee w ith al lo fthe r ea so ns giv en inGe ddes, Su l l i van, a nd M oore - Thom as ; Linglea nd8 N o. 10

- 1129 Ha w a iia n A irlines sh ow th at t h e r es u lts of th os e d ec isi ons ar e co rr ect. Graf ’ s ho l ding that the RLA co m ple tel y pr eem pts r e t a l i a t o r y - di s c ha r g e s ui t s u nd e r s t a t e l a w i s o v e r r ul e d. ( Other parts o fGr af

are u n affe c te d by th is c on c l u sio n .) Bec a us e thi s c o nc l us i o n i s c o mpe l l e d b y de c i s i o ns o f th e Sup rem e C ou rt after Graf , circ u l a t ion u n d er C irc u it Rule 40( e) i s unneces sar y. This s u it m ust be r em anded to state co urt, bec a u s e b othH ug he s and U nited are ci ti zens ofI l l i noi s. U ni ted subm i ts th at H ughes c annot pr ev ai lunl es s th e co urtc o ns i der s, a nd r ej ec ts , i ts c o nte nt i o n th at th e co l l ec ti ve ba r gaining agree m en t re quir ed herdi schar ge afterthr ee yea rs o n m edi cal leave. I f “ t h e state-law clai m i s d ep en d en t on th e interpr e t a t i o n o fa CB A ", Ha w a iia n A irlines , 51 2 U.S
. at262, th en he r claim is p reem p ted

. B ut th e state ju d iciary ( subj ect to re vi ew bythe Su p re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted St ate s) i s the r i ght for um f orU ni ted’ s a rgum ent o n that subj ect; i t would be i napp ro pri ate f orus t o disc uss i t. The j ud gm ent i s v acat ed, and the case is re m anded to the di str i ct c ourtwith instr ucti ons to re m and the l i ti gati on t o sta te cour t.

2- 8- 11