## 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. 07

- 3554 W I S CONS I N C EN T RAL, L TD ., P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C ATHERINE S HAN NON a nd N AN CY M C D ONA LD , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

____________ 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 . 07 C994

—RubenC astil lo, Judg e.

____________ A RGUED M AY 14, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 26, 2008

____________
Befo re B AUER, F LA UM, a nd M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . W iscons in C en tral, LT D
. ( “W C L ”), ani nt er st at e r ai l r o ad co m pan y, b r o ug hta s ui t se ek i ng decl ar ato ryand i nj un cti ve re l i efi n federa lco urt after the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fL abor( “the I DO L”) bega n i n v e s t i g a t i n gc l a i ms th a tWC L h a d v i o l a t e d o v e r t i me re gul ation s u nd erthe I l l i noi s M i ni m um W age Law , 82 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 1 05/4a. The bas i s forW CL ’ s s uitwas that the S tat e’ s ove rt im e pr ovi si ons w er e pr eem pted by2 N o. 07

- 3554 fe d e r a ll a w. Th i s p r e e mpt i o n a r g u me n twa s b a s e d o n t wo se p ar at e gr ou n d s: (1) th at en for c in g t h e Illino is law w ou ld requ ire inter p r e t ing p rovisi ons i n W C L ’s coll ective ba rgaini ng ag re em en ts ( “CB A s”) and w as thus pre em pted b y the fe de r a lR a i l wa y Lab o r Ac t( “ RL A” ) , 4 5 U. S
. C. §§ 151-188 , w hi ch r equi re d that a l lCB A di sputes b e re sol ved i n arbi tr ati on; a n d (2) thatCongr ess ’ s r egul ati on o fthe r ailw ays was so vas t that fi el d preem pti on appl i ed. On cr o ss - m o ti o ns f o r s um m ar y ju dgment, the d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u n d f o r WC L o n th e fi r s tp r e e mp t i o n c l a i m, and thus did notaddress the fi el d pr ee m pti on i ssue. Fo r t he f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e fi n d th a tth e i s s u e o fp r e e mpti o n und er the RLA was no t r i pe f o r c o ns i der at i o n, b ut that Congre ss has so occupie d the fi el d ofr ai l w ay re gul ati on that I l l i noi s’ s o vertim e l aw i s pre em pted as appli ed to the r ai l w ays .
I . B a c kg r o und W CL i s a ra i l ro ad that oper ate s in W i sco nsi n, M i nnesot a, Mi c h i g a n, a n d I l l i n o i s . In 2 0 0 5 , th e I D O L r e c e i v e d c o mpla i nts fro m fi ve W CL “s i gnalm ai ntai ners ” cl ai m i ng the y h a d b e e n d e n i e d o v e r t i me wa g e s o we d u n d e rI l l i n o i s l a w. See 820 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 1 0 5 /4 a . As s i g na lma i nt ai ners , these em plo yee s fel lwithi n o n e of the f our cate gor i es of W CL e m pl o y ee s ( whi chi nc l ud es c o m m uni ca ti o ns a nd si g na le m pl o y ee s, c o nduc to r s, l o co m o ti ve e ng i ne er s, a nd m aint en an ce - o f

- way e m pl o y ee s) tha t wor ki n I l l i no i s an d ha ve e nt er ed i nt o CBAs wi ththe r ai l way c onc erni ngthe ter m s a nd co nd i ti ons ofem plo ym ent. Defe nd ant N ancy M cDonal d, an I DO L c om pli ance offic er, was assign ed to inv es tig at e t h es e c laim s. M c D on aldN o. 07

- 3554 3 soughtto ve ri fy a nd co rr obo ra te the cl ai m ants’ al l ega ti ons. Aft ers pea k i ngwi thso m e o fthe c l ai m an ts , M cDo na l d s en t a l ett erto W CL ’ s I l l i noi s offi ce on A ugust 2 2, 20 06, r equesti ng the co m pany’s payr ol lr eco rds fro m S ep tem ber20 03 to the pr ese nt f oral lsi gnalm ai ntai ners . On Se ptem ber5, W CL r epl i ed by l ett er, exp l ai ni ng it s p osi ti on that, bec ause the si g na lm a i nt a i ne r s wer e empl o y e d p ur s ua ntt o a CB A enter ed i nto und erthe RL A , 45 U
. S. C. § 1 51 et seq
. , that A ct pr e e mpt e d the Stat e ’ s o v e r t i me l a w. WCL r e c e i v e d a re sponse to thi s l ettero n J anuary29 , 20 07, i n w hi ch M cDonal d explained that she was pro ceedi ng with her in vesti gat i on s i nce there was curr entl y no Chie fCounsel a tth e I D O L ab l e t o r e v i e w WCL’ s p r e e mp t i o n c l a i m. M c D on ald als o s ta te d th at if W C L d id n o t v olu n ta rily co m pl y wi thhe r r ec o r ds r eque st, sh e woul d s ubpo en a th e ra ilw ay to co m p el th e p a yr oll re c or d s’ p ro d u c tio n . See 820 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 105/ 7( c)
. M or eov er, M cDonal d noted that the I DO L w oul d bri ng enf or cem ent pr oce edi ngs aga i nst W CL under 82 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 10 5/ 12 if, after h er i nvest i gat i on, i t was deter m i ned that the I l l in ois M i ni m u m W age Law ’ s o ver ti m e pr ovi si ons had been v i o l a t e d. This prom pted W CL to fi l e, on F ebr uary21 , 20 07, a tw oco unts ui t i n fede r alc o urt se ek i ngde cl ar at o r y a nd i nj unc ti ve r el i ef

. The s ui t, b r o ug hta g ains t M cDona l d a nd Catherine S hannon, the then- A cti ng Di re c tor a nd now Dir ecto r of the I DO L, i n thei r offi ci al capaci ti es, cla i m ed tha te nfo r c e men to fthe S t a t e ’ s o v e r t i me l a w a g a i ns tWCL w as preem pted by federa llaw. Fi ve days l ate r, o n F eb r ua r y 2 6, the I DOL i ss ue d a s ubpo en a to W CL, s ee k i ng the t i m e a nd payr ol lr eco rds no t o nl y forthe si gnal4 N o. 07

- 3554

m aint aine r s, b utf o r ev ery W CL empl o y ee atthe c o m pan y fr o m S e pt e mbe r 1 , 2 0 0 3 t o F e b r ua r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 7
. The I DOL subsequentl y a gr eed to exte nd the dea d lin e fo r re sponding to the s ubpoena unti lafte r the r eso l uti on o f W CL ’ s l aw sui t. On M arch 29, 20 07, W CL am ended it s co m pla i nt to i ts pr e s e n tv e r s i o n . Co unt1 s o ug htde cl ar at o r y r el i ef, c l ai m i ng that base d o n Congre ss’ s vast re gul ati on of the ra i l w ay i ndus try, fi el d pr ee m pti o n a ppl i ed, thus b ar r i ngthe I l l i no i s M i ni m um W ag e Law’ s ap p l i cabi l i tyt o W CL. Co unt 2 s ou gh t t o e nj oin th e ID O L from en for c in g t h e Il l i n ois M i ni m um W age Law ag ai nst W CL o n the s am e g ro und s. Counts 3 a n d 4 sought the sa m e r el i efas Counts 1 and 2, bu t on th e basis tha t the R L A p reem p ted I ll inois’s overti m e l aw fro m being enf or ced w i th re spect to thos e work

e r s e mpl o y e d p u r s u a n tt o a C B A. T h e I DO L fi l e d a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s WCL ’ s c o m pl ai nt on Ap ri l23 , 20 07. The di stri ct c ourtco nver ted the m oti on to d ism i ss to a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, wh i ch W C L res p ond ed to w ith a cross-m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent. On Septe m ber 21, 20 07, the dist ri ct c ourti ssued a m em oran d um opinion a nd order, granting su m m ary j udg m en t f o r W CL a nd de ny i ngi t for th e I DOL. The d istri ct cou rt f o u n d f or W C L on th e basis of th e RL A ’s preem pti ve f or ce, r eas oni ng tha t dete rm i ni ng wh ether W C L h ad v i o lat ed Il lin ois ’s o ve rt im e p ro vis ion s w ou ld r equi r e i nterpr et i ngthe a ppl i cabl e CBA s, s o m ethi ng w hi ch the RL A m andates occur thro ugh an arbitr ati on p ro c es s o u ts id e t h e s ta te or fe d er al c ou rt s. Se eHaw ai i an A irlines v . No rris, 51 2 U. S
. 2 46 , 25 2- 53 ( 19 94 )
. H av i ngf o undN o. 07

- 3554 5 f orW CL o n thi s g ro und , the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not nee d to de te r m i ne whethe r fi el d pr ee m pti o n al so pr ec l ude d the I DO L fr om enf or ci ng the I l l i noi s M i ni m um W age Law ag ain stth e ra ilw ay . Th e ID O L t h e n b ro u gh t t h is a p p ea l, w ith W C L , inits res p on se br ief, co n te n d in g t h at th is Cour t, i fr eve rs i ng the di str i ct c ourt, co uld s ti l lfi nd f or th e r ai l way o n th e ba si s o ffi el d pr ee m pti o n.

I I . Discussi on This appe alr ai ses two pree m pti on i ssues : ( 1) wh ether th e I D O L ’s inv estigation an d enforcem en t of I ll inois’s ove rt im e l aw i s pre em pted by the RLA ; and ( 2) wh ether field p re em p tio n p re c lu d es th e St at e’s ov er tim e p r o v isi o n’ s appl i cabi l i tyt o the r ai l way, o n the b as i s o fCo ngr ess ’ s co m prehensi ve re gul ati on o fthe ra i li nd ustr y. Bec au se thi s appe alc o m es t o thi s Cou r t fr o m c r o ss - mo t i o ns fo r s u m m ary j ud gm en t, w e review the d istri ct cou rt’s fi nd i ngs deno vo , Aux S ab l eLiq ui d Pr ods
. v. M urphy, 52 6 F .3 d 1 028, 1032 (7th C ir. 2008). A s w ith an y sum m ary j udg m en t m o ti o n, thi s Cou r t r ev i ews the se c r o ss- m oti o ns “con stru ing allf acts , and draw ing allreason able inferen ce s fr o m tho se f ac ts , i n f av o r o f

. . . the no n- m o ving pa rt y. ” Aut om ob i l eM e ch ani cs Lo ca l 70 1 We l f are& Pe ns i on Funds v. Van guard C ar Rental U S A , Inc. , 50 2 F
. 3d 740, 74 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng Hal l v. Bodi neEle c. Co. , 27 6 F
. 3d 345, 35 2 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 2) )
. Her e, ho wev er, b ec au se the r e ar e no ge n uine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act, “we need deci de only w hetherei therparty ‘ i s en tit led to a j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c))
.6 N o. 07

- 3554

In 193 6, the R L A w as am en d ed to exp an d the A ct’ s ap p licab il- 1 ity to th e ai rl in e in d u str y , in ad d iti o n to th e r a ilr o a d s. Haw ai i an A irl ine s, 512 U.S. at 248 (cit in g A ctofAp r. 10, 1936, ch. 166, 4 9 St a t. 1 1 8 9 (co d ifie d as am en d ed at 45 U .S.C . §§ 18 1 -1 8 8 )). A . Pree m pti on U nd ert he R ai l w ay LaborA ct T he I D O L ’s app eal f ocu ses u p on th e d istri ct cou rt’s fin d in g t h at, “b ec au se th e o ve rt im e c laim s b ein g in ve st igat ed by the [ I ] DO L i nvol ve i nter preta ti on a nd appli cati on ofva r i o us p r o v i s i o ns o fthe CB As , the c l a i ms a r e pre em pted by the Rai l w ay [L abor ] A ct. ” Wi s . Ce nt
. Lt d. v. Shan non , 5 16 F
. S upp. 2 d 9 17, 9 25 (N
. D
. I l l

. 2 00 7)
. The S up r e me Co ur ta ddr e s s e d the R LA’ s p re empt i v e s c o pe m o str ec en tly i n Hawai i an Ai r l i n e s v . N orri s , 5 12 U
. S. 24 6 ( 19 94 ) , wher e th e Cou r t expl aine d the Acti n the

1 fol low ing m an ne r: Congre ss’ purpose i n passi ng the R LA w as to prom ote st ab i l i tyi n l ab o r - m an ag em en t r el at i o ns b y pr o vi di ng a co m prehensi ve fra m ew or k forr eso l vi ng l abordi spu tes
. To r eal i ze thi s g oal, the RL A es tabl i shes a m an dat o r y arbi tr al m ec ha ni sm f o r “the pr o m pt a nd or derl y s ett l em ent” oftwo cl ass es of disputes

. The fi rs t cl as s, tho se c o nc erni ng“ r at es o fpay, r ul es o r wor k i ng co ndi ti o ns , ” ar e deem ed “ m aj o r ” di spu te s. . . . The seco nd cl ass o fdi sputes, kno w n as “m i nor ” d isp utes, “gr ow out o fgr i ev an c es oro ut o fthe i nter preta ti on or ap pl i c a t i o n o fa g r e e men t s c o v e r i ngr a t e s o fp a y, rul es, o r w or ki ng co nd i ti ons. ” M i nor disputes i nvol ve “co ntro ver si es ove r the m eaning ofan e xi sting co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent in a par ti cul arf act si tua-N o. 07

- 3554 7

T his C ou rt ha s f ou nd “th e p reem p tion qu estion suffi cien tly 2 s i mi l a r t o t h e p r e c l u s i o n qu e s t i o n t o ma k e th e a n a l y s i s e mpl oye d i n the RLA preem pt i on c as es appl i c abl e” i n pr ec l us i on ca se s a s w e l l. Bro wn v . Il l
. Ce n t
. R. R. , 254 F. 3d 654, 662 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 1 ). ti on. ” Thus, “m aj ord i sputes seekto crea te contr actual rig h ts , m in or d isp u te s t o e n for c e t h em .” 512 U
. S. at25 2- 53 ( i nter nalcit ati ons om i tte d). A ccor dingl y, because the RL A r equi re s that a l l“m inor ” di sputes b e r es o l ve d thr o ug h “a m an dat o r y arbi tr alm ec ha ni sm, ” i fthe alle ge d ov er tim e v iola tio n s u n d er Il lin ois law are in es se nc e a “mi no r ” di spu te i nv o l vingthe CBAs, the n the ID O L ’s s ta te ov er tim e c laim s a re p re em p te d

. Id. at25 3. Des pi t e th i s ma n d a t o r y a rb i t r a t i o n p r o c e s s , h o we v e r, the Cou r t m ade c l ea r i n Ha w a iia n A irli n e s that “subst anti ve prot ecti ons provi ded byst ate l aw , i nd ependent ofwh ateve r l aborag reem ent m i ght g ove rn, ar e no t pr e- em pted und erthe RL A
. ” Id. at25 7. Instea d, the Cour t r eaffi rm ed i ts pr i o r de ci si o n in Li ngl ev. N orgeD i v. of M agi c Che f , Inc ., 486 U
. S. 39 9 ( 1988 ) , r ei ter ating tha t “ w h er e the r eso l uti on o fa s ta te
- law c lai m de pen ds o n a n int er pr et at i o n o fthe C B A , th e c laim is p re em p te d ,” b u t e x p lain in g t h at ce rt ain c l a i ms mayi nv o l v e “ ‘ pu r e l y f a c t ua lque s t i o ns ’
. . . [ tha t ] do not ‘ re quir e a cour t to i nter pret any ter m of a co l l ect i v e -b a r g a i ninga g r e e men t, ’ ” a nd thu s a r e n o tp r e e mpt e d. Id. at26 1- 62 ( quoti ng Lin gle, 486 U
. S. at 407). I n k ee pi ngwi th Ha w a iia n A irlines, t h is Cou rt has affi rm ed , o n a num bero fo ccasi ons, thatpre em pti on ( or
“ pr e c l us i o n” i fa fe de r a lcl a i m i s br o ught ) und e r the R LA 2 exi sts wh en “the succe ss ofthe cl ai m i s dependent upon an8 N o. 07

- 3554 interp retation of the collect iv e bargaining agreem en t’s t e r ms . ” M i l l e r v. Am. Ai r l i n e s, Inc. , 5 25 F. 3d 520, 52 4 ( 7th Cir. 20 08) ( ci ti ng Br own v . Il l
. Ce n t
. R. R. , 25 4 F
. 3d 654, 66 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ [ T ] h e b e s twa y t o h a r mo n i z e th e s e t wo statu t e s [ th e RL A and the A D A ] is to all ow a plaintiff em plo yee to br i ng a n A DA cl ai m i n federa lco urt aga i nst hi s e m plo yer( eve n i fhi s e m plo ym ent i s g ove rned bya coll ect i ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t whi chi s su bj ec t to the RL A ) , u nl e s s the r e s o l ut i o n o fh i s ADA c l a i m r e qu i r es the c ourtto i nter pret the c ol l ecti ve b ar gaini ng ag re emen t ’ s t e r ms a s a po t e nt i a l l y di s po s i t i v e mat t e r . ” ) a nd Tice v. Am
. Ai r l i ne s , Inc . , 28 8 F
. 3d 313, 31 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( “pr o vi di ngtha t di smi ss ali s appr o pr i at e wher e ‘ a par ti cul ari nt er pr et at i o n o fthe c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t i s pot enti al l y di sposi ti ve ofa the pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m ’ ”) ) ; s ee al s o In reBe ntz M e t al Pr ods
. Co. , 253 F. 3d 283, 285 (7th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( ho l di ng, wi th r e s pe c tt o the p a r a l l e lp r e e mption pro vi si on in § 3 01 ofthe LaborM anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct ( “LM RA ”), 29 U
. S. C. § 1 85( a) , “thata sta te l aw cl a i m i s n o tp r e e mpt e d i fi tdo e s n o tr e qu i r e i nt e r pr e tati o n o fthe CBA ev eni fi t m ayr equir e reference t o the C B A ”)
. Acco r di ng l y, thi s Cou r t ha s i den ti fi ed m an y scen arios w he re CB A s m ay be im p li cate d as pa rt of a sta te orfedera lcause o fact i on, but preem pti on/precl usi on ofthe cl ai m i s unneces sa ry. S uch exam ple s incl ud e: ( 1) wh en “the par ti cul arco ntra ctualpro vision i s s o cl ear as to precl ud e a l lposs ibl e di spute o veri ts m eani ng, ” B a k er v. Ki ngsley, 3 87 F
. 3d 64 9, 6 58 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( quo ting M et alcrafte rs v. M cNei l , 784 F.2d 817, 824 (7th C ir. 1986)); ( 2) i f“the par ti es d[o ] notdi spute the int er p re tat i on o f the relev an t CBA pro vi si ons, ” Br own , 25 4 F
. 3d at 668; o rN o. 07

- 3554 9

The o v ertim e provisi on in I ll inoi s’ s M ini m um W age Law 3 p ro v id es tha t: [ N ] o em p loy er s hall em ploy any of hi s em ployees f or a w orkw eek ofm ore than 40 hours un le ss such em ployee re c ei ves c om pen s at i on f or hi s e m pl oym en tin ex c es s of the hours abov e sp ec ifie d at a rat e not le ss than 11/2 ti m es the r e gu l a r r a t e a twhi c h he i s e m pl oy e d. 820 I LL . C OM P . S TAT . 10 5/4a (1). In d e t e r m i nin g w he the r this ove rt i m e l aw has be envi ol at ed, i ti s ne c es sary to c al c ul at e the “h ou rs w or k ed ,” w hich is d efined as: al l the t i m e an em pl oye e i s r equi re d t o be ondut y, or o n the em pl oye r’ s pr em i s es , or atothe r pre s c ribed pl ac es of work, an d any addi t i ona l t im e he o r s he i s r equi re d or perm it ted t o w ork f or the em ployer, (co n tin u ed ...) ( 3) wh er e r efer ence to th e C BA i s o nl y nec ess ar y for c o m p u tin g d am ag es . Se eIn reBe ntz M e t al Pr ods
. Co. , 25 3 F. 3d at 286- 87 ( disc ussi ng Li vadas v. Br ads haw , 51 2 U.S
. 10 7 (1994)). The dis tr i ct c ourt, i n i ts anal ysi s, f ocuse d up on wh ether re sol vi ng an ove rt i m e cl ai m br ought by the I DO L against W CL “would r equi re the appli cation o r i nter preta ti on o f the CBA s. ” Wisco nsin C entra l, LTD ., 516 F. Sup p. 2d at92 2. The c ourtf ound that s uch i nter preta ti on would be nece ssa ry , obs er vin g t h at co m p u tin g ov er tim e u n d er Il lin ois l a w r e qu i r e s a s c e r t a i ningthe n umb e r o f“ ho ur s wo r k e d” and the “r egul arr ate o fpay”; fi gure s that coul d onl y b e cal cul ate d by turni ng to the CB A s, and w er e no t s o clear un d er those agreem en ts t h a t th ey cou ld be d eterm i ne d thr o ug h a “m er e ‘ g l an ce ’ ” wi th o uti nt er pr et at i o n. 310 N o. 07

- 3554

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 I LL . A DM IN . C ODE ti t. 56, § 210. 110, as w el l as the “regular rat e” ofpay, the f or m ul a for whi c h va ri es depe ndi ng upo n th e m a n n er in w h i c h t h e e m p lo y ee is co m p en sa te d , I LL . A DM IN . C ODE tit. 56, § 210. 430 ( dif feri ng calc ulati ons f or em ployees paid on an hourly rat e, “p ie ce - rat e” em ployees, s alar ie d em p lo y ee s, an d o th er s ) , a n d in cl u d es m u lti p le ex cl u sio n s. I LL . A DM IN . C ODE tit. 56, § 21 0.410 ( suc h a s “ w he n n o w or k is p e r f o r me d d u e t o a v a c a t i o n, h o l i d a y , i l l n e s s , f a i l u r e o fe mpl oye r t o pr ovi de s uffi c i en twork, or othe r s i m i l ar c aus e” )
. The CBA s ati s s ue i n thi s c as e c ont ai n n um er ous pr ovi s i ons pot en ti all y rel evant to cal culat ing the “hours worked ” and “regular rate ” o f p ay , suc h a s clau ses pe rtain ing to m eal p erio d s, on -call tim e, and trav el tim e, am on g oth ers. The m ai n thr ust o fthe I DO L’s appeal i s that the di str i ct cou rt fai led to take th e ext ra step of d eterm ining w he th er, at thi s s tag e of th e proce edi ngs, i t was ev i dent thatan i nter preta ti on o fW CL ’ s CBA s would be “ di s pos i t i ve ” o f l i ab i l i t y i n a n o v e r t i me c l a i m b r o u g h t u n d e r I l l i no i s l a w. R eferenc ing the exam p les gi ven above w he re this C ou rt has note d that preem pti on/precl usi on w oul d b e un necessa r y, the I DOL ar g ue s th at, part i cul ar l y s i nc e as o fr i g ht now , a t th e i nvest i gat i on s tag e, ther e i s no di spute be

twe enthe p arti es a s to the CBAs’ t er m s as a ppl i ed to the I l l i noi s M i ni m um W age Law , the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm e n t w as p re m at u re an d ov erb ro ad . Th is a rg u m en t is str i ki ngly sim il arto a cl ai m thatthi s s uiti s no t r i pe f or re vie w , bu t t h e ID O L sp ec ifica lly ar gu ed in its br ief t o th is Court th at t hi s s uiti s r i pe f oradj ud i cati on. Thi s Court, ho wev er, i s “obl i g at ed to c o ns i der[ i ts ] j ur i sdi ct i o n a t an y sta ge ofthe proce edi ngs, ” Wi s co nsin v. Ho- Chunk Nat i on ,N o. 07

- 3554 11 512 F. 3d 921, 93 5 ( 7th Cir. 2008) ( quoti ng Enahoro v. Abub akar, 40 8 F
. 3d 877 , 8 83 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ) , and ri peness, w hen i t i m pli cate s the poss ibi l ity o fthi s Courti ssui ng an advi sor y o pini on, i s a questi on o f s u b j ect m att erj uri sd ict ion u n d er th e c as e-o r-c on tr ov er sy req u ire m en t. M e r i di an Se c. Ins . Co. v. Sa dows ki, 441 F.3d 536 , 538 (7th C ir. 2006). Ripenes s i s predi cate d on the “centr alper cepti on . . . that cour ts shoul d not re nd erdeci si ons abse nt a genui ne nee d to re sol ve a r ealdi spute, ” Leh n v. Ho lm es , 364 F. 3d 862, 86 7 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g1 3 A C H A R LES A LA N W R I GHT, A RTHU R R. M IL LER, & E DWARD H. C OO PER, F EDERAL P RAC TI CE & P ROCEDURE § 3532
. 1, a t 11 4 ( 2d ed. 1 98 4) ) , a nd “[ c] ase s a re unri pe wh en the part i es poi nt o nl y t o hypotheti cal, spec u lativ e, o r i l l usor y di sputes a s o pp ose d to a c tual, co ncre te confl i cts. ” Id. ( quoti ng H i n r i ch s v. W hit burn , 975 F. 2d 1329 , 13 33 ( 7th C ir. 19 92) )
. The i nquir y into r i pen es s i s m ade m o r e co m pl i ca te d when su i t is brought und e r the De c l a r a t o r y J ud g men tAc t, 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 0 1, and hence se eks pre em p tive r el i ef, but the abi l i ty to br i ngs ui t unde r tha t Act does no t vi ti at e th e co ns ti tu
ti onalr equi re m ent that the cl ai m add re ss “a case o factual c ontrov er sy. ” D evera ux v. C ityof C hic ago , 1 4 F
. 3 d 3 28, 330- 31 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. T h i s Courthas ackno w l edged that “t h e d ist in c tio n be tw ee n a ‘ c o n t r ov er sy ’ in t h e A rt icle II I se ns e an d an ab st r ac t que st i o n o fl aw ‘ i s ne ce ss ar i l y o ne ofdegr ee, and i t would be di ffi cul t, i fi t would be poss ibl e, to f ashi on a pre ci se tes t fordeter m ini ng i n eve rycas e w h et h er th er e i s s u c h a co n tr ov er sy .’ ” Id. at3 30 ( quo ting M aryl and Cas ual ty Co. v. Paci f i c Coal & O i l Co. , 312 U
. S. 27 0, 273 ( 1941 ) )
. The S up re m e Cour t, however, has tr i ed to cl ar i fy thi s standard, r ecent l y r ei ter ating tha t, “[ b] asi cal l y,12 N o. 07

- 3554 the que s t i o n i n e a c h c a s e i s w hethe r the f a c t s a l l e g e d, und eral lthe ci rcum sta nces, sho w thatther e i s a substa nti alco ntro ver sy, betw een par ti es havi ng adver se l ega li nter est s, o fsuffi ci ent i m m edi acy and rea l i ty to w ar ra n t t h e is su an c e o f a d ec la r a to ry j u d gm en t.” M e dIm m une, Inc . v. Ge ne nt e ch, Inc . , 12 7 S. Ct. 76 4, 77 1 ( 2007 ) ( quoti ng M a ryla nd C a sua ltyC o ., 312 U
. S. at 273). Intry in g t o a sc er ta inw h et h er W C L ’s p re em p tio n su it und erthe RL A i s of“suffi ci ent i m m edi acy and rea l i ty” to w ar ra nt r evi ew byt h is Cour t a t thi s t i m e, we are gui ded bythe Supr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in A bbottLabs , wher e th e Cou r t s ta te d tha t “ r i pen es s de te r m i na ti o ns de pen d o n ‘ th e fi tne s s o f the i s s ue s f o r j ud i c i a l de c i s i o n a nd the h a r dsh ip to th e p ar tie s o f w ith h old in g c ou rtco n sid e r a t i on .’ ” M et ro. M il w auk eeAss’ n of C om m er cev. M il w auk eeCo unty, 325 F. 3d 879, 88 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( quoti ng Abbot tLa b s v. G a rdn er, 38 7 U
. S
. 1 36 , 1 49 ( 19 67 ) )
. W i thr es pec t to the fi rs t r equi re m ent, w h ether thi s i ssue i s fi t forj ud i ci al review , this i s not th e case h ere, bas ed up on th e nat ure ofW CL ’ s pre em pti on cl ai m under the RLA

. I ssues o f express o r fi el d preem p tio n are gener al l y pure l y l ega l que st i o ns , wher e th e m att erc anb e r es o l ve d s o l ely o n the b as is of t h e s ta te an d fe d er al st at u te s a t is su e. Se e, e . g. , i d. at 88 2 (is su e rip e fo r c on sid er at ion w h e r e “a lm os t p u re ly l ega li ssues ” r ai sed r ega rdi ng wh ether a co unty o rdi nance w as preem pted by the N ati onal L ab or Rel ati ons A ct, 29 U
. S. C. §§ 151 et seq .); P a c. G a s & E lec. C o . v . S ta te E nergy R es. C onservation & D ev. Co m m ’n , 46 1 U.S
. 19 0, 20 1 (1 983) ( n o t i n g, i n fi n d i n ga p r e empti o n c l a i m r i p e f o r r e v i e w, th at “[t ]h e qu es tio n of pr e-e m p tio n is p r ed om in an tly l ega l ”)
. Thi s i s no t th e c ase, however, f orpre em pti onN o. 07

- 3554 13 questi ons und erthe RL A , o r i ts paral l elpro vi si on in § 3 01 of the Labor M anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct, 29 U
. S. C. § 1 85. See Ha w a iia n A i r l i nes, 512 U
. S. at26 0 ( describi ng the se st an d ar d s a s “ vir tu ally id en tic al ” )
. A s e x p lain ed by th is Cou r t i n In re B entz M etal P rod s C o ., the questi on o fwh ether a s tate law i s pre em pted by v i rtue o fa CB A , “r equi re s [ a] case -by- case f actualanal ysi s to deter m i ne the exte nt to w hich a state law clai m w il l requ ire interp ret a t io n of a CB A
. ” 2 53 F. 3d at 285 ( disc ussi ng p re em pti on un der § 30 1 of the L M R A ). H ere, the re cor d i s no t s uffi ci entl y deve l oped f orthis C ou rtto en ga ge in t h is “ c as e-b y-c as e fa c tu alanalysis .” T h is Court’ s pre cedent r efl ects thatst ate l aw i s o nl y pr eem pted i fthe re soluti on o fthe cl ai m “i s dep en d en t up on a n interp retation of th e c oll ective ba rgaining agreem en t’s ter m s. ” M iller, 5 2 5 F
. 3 d a t5 2 4
. Atthi s s t a g e o fthe p r o c e e di ngs, al lthati s cl eari s that the CBA s wil lhave to be consulte d to cal cul ate the “hours worke d” and “re gul ar ra te ” o f p ay u n d er th e Illino is M in im u m W ag e A c t. W h ile thi s info rm ati on was suffi ci ent forthe dis tr i ct c ourtto deter m i ne thatcom pu ti ng the se val ues “ re quir es i nter pretat i on a nd appli cati on o fvar i ous prov isio ns co ntai ned in the CB A s, ” Wis. Cen t. LTD ., 5 1 6 F
. S u p p . 2 d a t 92 4, t he parti es have not yetst ake d out a posi ti on f orthe re cor d as to w h at th es e C B A p ro vis ion s m ea n, m ak in g it im p os sib le to d eterm ine at th is stage of th e proc eed ings w he th er a d isagreem en t w il l ex ist that w ill req uire an arbitrator, under th e te r m s o f th e RLA, to en g ag e i n th i s CB A i nt erpr et at i o n. A s par t o fi ts fi nd i ng tha t I l l i noi s’ s o ver ti m e pr ovi si on w as preem pted, the dist ri ct c ourti ncor re ctl y pl ac ed14 N o. 07

- 3554

r el i an ce upo n l an g ua g e i n In re B e n t z M etal P rod s. C o ., w hi ch st ate s that, “ [i]f t he ent i tl em ent t o w age s ( oro ther e mpl o y e e p a y ) o r the a mou ntdu e we r e a ti s s ue , the CB A woul d c o nt r o l ; a l m o stc er ta i nl y, i nter pr et at i o n o fthe ag r ee m en t woul d b e ne ce ss ar y an d woul d b e su bj ec t to the arbi trati on pro cedures i n the contr act. ” 2 53 F. 3d at 289. W hat the di str i ct c ou rt d id notta ke i nto acco unt i s that th e r ea so n the e nt i tl ementt o wag es an d the a m o unt du e we re not ati ss ue i n tha t ca se was b ec au se “ th ats um [w as ] u n d isp u te d ” b et w ee n t h e p ar tie s. Id. at2 87
. Her e, the I DO L’s i nvest i gat i on o fW CL ’ s o ver ti m e pr acti ces has not prog re sse d to a poi nt w here i t can be deter m i ned w hat dispute, i fany, the parti es w i l l have ove r the CBA s’ te rm s. B ec au se p re em p tio n u n d er t h e R L A w ill on ly oc c u r if the pa r ti es di spu te the CBAs’ t er m s, a nd e ve n the n, ar guably o nl y i f t h e d ispute i s r el evantas to l i abi l i ty as op p os ed to d am ag es , th e r e c or d is n otsu fficie n tly devel oped f orthi s Courtto enga ge i n the case -by- case f actualanal ysi s r equi re d by In reBe ntz M e t al Pr ods
. Co. T he secon d requ irem en t un d er A bbottLa bs f or det erm i ni ng r i peness

— “ the ha r ds hi p t o the p a r t i e s o fwi thh o l di ng co urt consi derat ion, ” A bbottLabs , 38 7 U.S
. at14 9

— is sim i l ar l y not m et i n thi s case . A s a gener al m att er, it is ty p ica lly n o b ar to rip en es s if t h e g o ve rn m en t h as on ly thr e a t e ne d e nfo r c e men t, r a the r tha n a c t ua l l y b r o ught a law su it. Se eM e dIm m un e, Inc . , 127 S. Ct
. at 772 (“w he re thre ate ned acti on by gov er nm ent i s co ncer ned, we do not requi r e a pl aint i fft o e xpo se hi m se l ft o l i ab i l i tyb efo re b rin gin g s u it t o c h a l l e n g e t h e b as is for th e t h re at ”); see also Nat’l M et alcrafte rs v. M cNei l , 7 84 F. 2d 817, 82 2 ( 7th Ci r . 19 86 )
. Thi s si tu at i o n i s uni que , ho wev er, sinc e theN o. 07

- 3554 15 pr ee m pti ve s wee p o f th e RLA i s f o cus ed upo n “ pr o vi di ng a c om p re h en siv e fra m ew or k for res olv in g la b or d isp u te s,” Hawaii an Air l i nes, 512 U
. S. at25 2, and does not re ach

“ s ub s t a nt i v e p r o t e c t i o ns p r o v i de d b y st a t e l a w, i nd e pe nd

ent o fw hatev erlab oragre em ent m i ght g ove rn. ” Id. at25 7. T h u s, th e h a rd sh ip to W C L is n otits n ee d to co m p ly wi ththe St at e’ s o ve r ti m e r equi r ement s o r the c ur r en t i nvest i gat i on, but i s r atherthe possibi l i ty that i t w i l lneed to defe nd i tse l f i n an enf or cem ent acti on ult i m ate l y pr eempte d due t o the ne ed f o r a n a rbi tr at or, r athe r tha n a c o ur t, t o i nt e r pr e tthe CB As , i n a c c o r d wit h the R LA. Of co u r s e , a s o u r s i s t e r C i r c u i t h a s o b s e r v e d , “ i f i t i s e vi den t th at th e re su lt of a p ro c es s m u st lea d to
. . . p re em p tio n, i t w oul d defyl ogi c to hol d that the pro cess i tse l fcann ot be p re em p te d an d th at a c om p lain t s ee kin g th at res u lt w oul d not r ai se a r i pe i ssue. ” NE Hu b P a r t n e rs , L
. P
. v . C NG Tran s m i s s i on C o rp ., 239 F. 3d 333, 34 8 ( 3r d C i r. 20 01)
. That cour t, however, was quickto not e that: W e a r e n o th o l di ngtha ta nyc l a i m o fp r o c e s s p r e e mpti on ne ces sa r i l y i s r i pe so tha t th e co ur t sh o ul d c o nsid er th e p re em p t ion cla im be for e t h e p ro c es s is com p let ed

. I t wel lm ay be that in a par ti cul arcas e w hen confl i ct preem pti on is im pli cate d the co urt m ay conclude thati t r eas onabl y c an be anti ci pated that the p r o c e s s wi l ly i e l d a r e s ul ttha ti s n o tp r e e mpt e d. Id. at34 9 n. 18. H er e, the cl ai m that the I DO L’s i nvest i gat i o n s ho ul d b e h a l t e d b a s e d u po n the p r e e m pti ve s c o pe ofthe RL A i s no t r i pe f orco nsi derat i on, since thi s i s not a ci rcum sta nce wh er e th e ID OL ’ s invest i gat i on a nd subse

q u en t e n for c em en t o f th e S t at e’s ov er tim e la w s w ou ld16 N o. 07

- 3554 i nvar i abl y l ead to a fi nd i ng o fpree m pti on. A s di scusse d ab o v e , e v e n i f the I DOL b r o ught s ui t a g a i ns t W CL under th e I ll inois M inim um W a g e A ct, scena rios ex ist w he re i t would be unnecess ar y forthe CB A s to be inter prete d i n or der to re sol ve the cl ai m . A ccor dingl y, the d istri ct co ur t l ac k ed j ur i sdi cti on t o r ul e o n W CL’ s co unt s co nc e r n i n gp r e e mpt i o n u n d e r th e R L A.

B. Fi el d P r eemp t i on This Court “m ay affi rm the dist ri c t court ’ s g ra nt o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n a g ro und o thertha n t hat r el i ed up on bythe distric t courtbel ow, so l ong as the a l ternati ve basi s fi nd s a dequ ate support i n the re cor d.” B o m ba rd v. Fo rt Wa yn e New spa pers , 92 F .3d 56 0, 56 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( ci ti ng M eredith v. A l l s teel, Inc ., 11 F. 3d 1354, 13 58 ( 7th Cir
. 1993 ) )
. Thu s, eve n though the di str i ct c ourto nl y r ule d on w hethe r the RLA pr ee m pte d the I l l i no i s M i ni m um W age L aw as a p p li ed to W C L , w e t urn to exam ine W C L ’s alt er n at e c l aim

— that fi el d preem pti on ba rs the sta tes fro m r egul ating r ai l ro ad ove rt i m e wages. Ri pen es s do es no t po se a n obs ta cl e to thi s Cou r t he ar i ng th is c laim

. See A bbo tt La bs, 38 7 U.S
. at 1 49 ( w hetheran i ss ue i s r ipe for r ev i ew de pen ds upo n “ th e fi tn es s o fthe i ssues forj ud i ci ald eci si on and the hardshi p to the par ti es of w ith h old in g c ou rtco n sid er at ion ”). U n l i ke th e fa c tu al, c ase - b y - c a s e a na l y s i s r e qu i r e d fo r de t e r mi ningp r e e mptio n u n d er th e R L A , I n r e B entz M etal P rod s. C o ., 253 F. 3d at 28 5, field p re em p tio n is a p u re ly leg al q u es tio n, se e P ac. Gas & Ele c. Co. , 461 U
. S. at 201, l i m i ted to an anal ysi s of the I l l i noi s M i ni m um W age Law and fed er alst atute sN o. 07

- 3554 17 g o ve r ni ngthe r ai l way s. F ur the r m o r e, i n a ddi ti o n t o the re c or d be in g s u fficie n tly d ev elo p ed for re vie w o n th is i ssue, ther e i s al so a hardshi p to W CL i fthi s Courtdoes not hearthi s cl ai m atthi s t i m e. T he I DO L has thr eat ened to e nfo r c e I l l i no i s ’ s o v e r t i me l a w ag a i ns tWCL

— en f o r ce m en t th atwoul d b e co m pl et ely ba r r ed i f th i s Cou r t wer e to fi nd fi e l d p r e e mpt i o n t o e xi s t
. Mo r e o v e r, e v e n i fthe I DOL ult i m ate l y di d not br i ng sui t a gainst W CL , i ts i nvest i gati on al one drai ns W CL ’ s re sour ces, and there w ou ld be n o b a s i s f o r th e I D O L t o i n v e s t i g a t e th e s e o v e r t i me cl ai m s i ffi el d preem pti on i s a pp l i cabl e. The pr ee m pti o n do ct r i ne i s g r o unde d i n the Co ns ti tu
tio n ’s S u p re m ac y C lau se , w h ich p ro vid es th at, “T h is C on st i tuti on, and the Law s o fthe U ni ted S tat es w hi ch sh al lb e m ade i n Pu rs ua nc e th er eo f

. . . s ha l lb e th e S uprem e Law ofthe l and.” Hoagl and v. To w n of Cl e arLa ke, 415 F. 3d 693, 69 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (q u ot in g U
. S. Const. , ar t. VI, cl

. 2)
. Fi el d preem pti on does notr es t on an e xpress congr ess i onalpro vi si on, ora confl i ct b etween federa l an d st at e la w , s e ei d. , but i nstea d occ urs “i ffedera ll aw so thor oughl y o ccupie s a l egi sl ati ve fi eld ‘as to m ake r eas o n ab l e th e i n fe r e n c e th a tC o n g r e s s l e ftn o r o o m fo r t he St ates t o supp l em ent i t. ’ ” Cipo l l onev. Ligge t tGr oup, Inc ., 505 U
. S. 50 4, 51 6 ( 1992) ( quoti ng Fi de l i ty F e d. Sa v. & Lo an A ss n. v. D e la Cuest a , 458 U
. S. 141, 153 (1982 ))
. The l ong hi st or y o fper vasi ve congr ess i onalr egul ati on o v e r th e r a i l wa y i n d u s t r y i s u n d e n i ab l e , a n d th e S u p r e me Court has obser ved that, “[r ] ai l ro ads h ave bee n subj ect to c om p re h en si v e fed er al re gu lat ion for n ea rly a c en tu ry .” U ni t e d Tr ans p. U ni on v. L o ng Islan d R. R. Co. , 45 5 U.S
. 67 8,18 N o. 07

- 3554

Pac i fic R ailroad Actof18 62 , c h. 12 0, 12 St at
. 48 9 ( gr ant i ng 4 ri g h ts o f w a y to co n str u ct a r a il li n e). Inte rs t at e Com m er c e Actof18 87, 24 St at
. 37 9 ( c re at i ng the 5 I nt e r s t a t e Co m m e r c e Co m m i s s i on( I CC) t o r e gu l a t e r a i l s hi pp in g ). R ail w ay L abor A ctof 1926, 44 Stat
. 577 ( codifie d as am ended 6 a t 4 5 U .S.C . §§ 15 1 -1 8 8 ). This i ncludes the H ours ofSer vice A ctof1 9 0 7 , 3 4 Stat. 1415 7 ( c odi fi ed a s am en ded a t4 9 U .S. C. §§ 21 10 1- 21 10 8) an d the A dam s on Ac t of 1 9 1 6 , 3 9 S t a t
. 7 2 1 ( c od i fi e d a s a m e nd e d a t49 U .S. C
. § 28 30 1). T he p u rp ose o f the H ou rs of Serv ice A ct w as “to promot e s a fe t y i n op e r a t i ngt r a i ns by pr e ve nt i ngthe e x c e s s i ve m en t al an d phys i c al s t ra i n whi c hu s u a l l y r es ul t s fro m r em ai ni ng too l ong at an ex act ing t ask, ” C hicago & A
. R
. C o. v. U n i te d S tates , 24 7 U .S. 197 , 1 9 9 ( 1 9 18 ), w hile th e A d am son A ct w as p assed in res pon se to a thr eate ned str ike and perm anentl y se t ei ght hours as a d ay ’ s w or k , w hile tem p or arily lim iting w ag e ad justm en ts. Wil so n v. N ew , 2 4 3 U .S. 3 3 2 (19 1 7 ). Safety App li ance Act of1893, 27 St at. 531 ( codifie d as 8 ame n de d i n s c a t t e r e d s e c t i o n s o f4 9 U. S
. C
. ) ; B o i l e r I n s p e c t i on A ctof1911 , 3 6 St at. 913 ( codifie d as am ended i n sc att ered se ct ions of49 U.S
. C.) ; Federal Rail road Safe ty Act of1970, 84 Stat
. 971 ( codifie d as am ended at 49 U.S. C. § 20101 e ts e q. ). 687 (1982 ). Th ese law s ha v e to uc he d on ne arly every aspect ofthe ra i l w ay i nd ustr y, i ncl ud i ng pro pertyr i ghts, 4 shi pp i ng, l abor re lati ons, hour s o fwork, sa fety,

5 6 7 8N o. 07

- 3554 19

49 U.S. C. § 20106 ( “regulat ions , and orders rel ated t o rai lr oad 9 se cu ri ty sh a ll b e n a tio n a lly u n ifo rm to th e e xt en t p ra ct ic a b le ” ). R ail road R eti rem ent A ctof1974, 88 St at. 1 3 0 5 ( codifie d as 10 am ended at 45 U.S. C. § 231 e ts e q. ). R ail road U nem ploym ent Ins urance Act of1938, 52 St at. 1094 11 ( codifie d as am ended at 45 U.S. C. § 351 e ts e q. ). R egional Rail Reorganizati on A ctof1 9 7 3 , 87 St at. 985 ( codifie d 12 as am en d ed at 45 U. S. C. § 701 e ts e q. ) ( c ombi ne d b a nk r up t ra ilr o a d s in to th e C o n so lid a te d R a il C o rp o ra tio n ). se cur i ty, r et i r ement, une m p l o y m en t, a nd pr es er ving

9 10 11 th e ra ilroa d s d u r i n g fin an c ial d ifficu ltie s, as w as w ell- 12 do cument ed bythe S i xth Ci r cui t i n i ts de ci si o n a ddr es sing the v e r y i s s ue n o w b e f o r e thi s Co ur t. R .J. C or m an R. R. Co. v. P a lm o re, 999 F.2d 149, 151-52 (6th Cir. 1993). M or eov er, m u c h ofthi s federa ll egi sl ati on has bee n f ound to pr ecl ud e st ate r egul ati on o verthe ra i l w ays . Fo r exam ple , as has al re ady be en di scusse d, the RLA ’ s g oal o f“ pr o vi di nga c o m pr eh en si ve fr amewor kf o r r es o l ving lab or d isp u te s,” p re em p ts st at e-la w ac tio n s t h at w ou ld re q u ire i n t e rp re tin g a C B A
. Ha w a iia n A irlines, 512 U
. S. at 2 5 2

- 5 3
. C o n g r e s s h a s a l s o e x p r e s s l y p r e e mp t e d s t a t e l a ws r el at i ngt o r ai lroad sa fety a nd s ec ur i ty, unl es s th e sp ec ific subj ect- m att erhas not yetbee n re gul ate d by a federa lag ency, o r i f s u c h a re gul ati on i s nec ess ar y t o addr es s a uni que l y l o ca lha za r d. 4 9 U. S. C
. § 20 10 6. Go i ng far th erbac k in hi sto ry, the Suprem e Cour t, i n 191 4, h eld th at th e H ou rs o f S er vic e A c t, w h ich w as int en d ed to lim it the num bero fco nsecuti ve hours w or ked byr ai l w ay em p loy ee s o u t o f sa fet y c on c er n s, s e eC hi cago & A. R. Co. v.20 N o. 07

- 3554 U nited Sta tes , 24 7 U.S
. 19 7, 19 9 ( 1918 ), p re em pted stat e re gu lat ion in th is a re a. E rie R . C o . v . New Yo rk, 23 3 U.S
. 67 1, 683 ( 1914 ) ( “[ T]he ‘H ou rs o fS er vi ce’ l aw o fM ar ch 4, 19 07, i s th e j udg m en t o fCo ng r es s o fthe ext en t o fthe r es tr i c t i o n n e c e s s a r y . I ta d mi t s o fn o s u p p l e me n t ; i ti s the pr es cr ibe d m ea su r e o fwhat is ne ce ss ar y a nd s uffi ci en t f orthe pu bl i c sa fetyand ofthe cos t a nd burden w hi ch th e rail road m us t end ure to secu re i t.”)
. The I DO L acknowledges that there i s a gr eatquanti ty o ff e de r a lr a i l wa y l e g i s l a t i o n a nd tha tc e r t a i n r a i l r o a dre l ate d l aw s hav e a p re em pti ve effect, but m ai ntai ns that Con g r es s ha s no t su ffi ci en tly e xpr es se d its “ cl ea r a nd m ani fest ” intent that I l l i noi s’ s o ver ti m e l aw be pr eem pted as ap p lied to the rail road s, p articu larl y since w ages are an are a t ra d itio n ally leftto st at e re gu lat ion
. Se eE ng li s h v
. G enera l E lec. C o ., 49 6 U. S
. 7 2, 7 9 ( 19 90 ) ( “ ‘ W he r e . . . the f i e l d wh i c h c o ng r e s s i s s a i d t o h a v e p r e - e mpt e d’ i nc l ud es ar ea s th atha ve ‘ be ent r adi ti o nall y oc cupi ed bythe St ate s, ’ co ngre ssi onali ntent to superse de sta te l aw s m u st be ‘ cl earand m ani fest
. ’ ”) ( quoti ng Jone s v. Rat h Pac ki ng Co. , 43 0 U .S. 51 9, 52 5 (19 77 )); see also Fra nkB ros. v. Wis. DOT , 4 09 F
. 3d 88 0, 8 87( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( “e stabl i sh m en t ofpre vai l i ng wage r ate s a n d l aborst andards f ori nd i gen ou s w or ke rs is a n a re a o f tra d itio n al s ta te reg u lat ion ”). In supp or to fi t s p o s i t i o n, the I DOL p r i mar i l y r e l i e s u po n th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Ter m i nal Rai l r oad Ass oc i atio n v . B roth erho o d o

f R a ilro a d Trai nm en, w he r e t h e Cou rt de te rm i ned that a s tat e r equi re m ent that a l ltr ai ns have cabo o se s ( f o r the “ he al th, s afety, a nd c o m f o r t ofthe re arsw i tchm en”) w as not preem pted by the Boi l erInspect i o n A c t, t h e S a fe t y A p p l i a n c e A c t, th e In t e r s t a t e C o m-N o. 07

- 3554 21

mer c e Ac t, o r the R LA. 3 1 8 U. S. 1 , 3

- 6 ( 1 9 4 3 )
. T he I DOL conte nd s that W CL ’ s fi el d pr eem pti on ar gum ent i s fo re cl ose d by the Court ’ s h ol ding that “the enactm ent b y Congre ss ofthe Rai l w ay LaborA ct w as n ot a preem pti on ofthe fi el d ofr egul ating working co nd i ti ons th em se l ves an d di d no t pr ec l ude the S ta te o fI l l i no i s fr o m makingthe or der in questi on.” Id. at7. A s W CL co rr ectly points o ut, how eve r, the f act that the RLA “doe s n ot undertak e g o ve r nm en ta lr egul at i o n o fwag es , ho ur s, or wor k i ng c on d itio ns, ” i d. at6, does notm ean that Congr ess has not m anif este d i ts i nt en t to pr ec l ude s ta te s fr o m e nf o r cing i ts ove rt i m e l aw s a gainst t h e ra i l ro ads i n other sta tutes
. T he qu estio n th en, i s w he th er, by exa m ining C ong ress’s expan sive r egul ati on o fthe ra i l w ays and the preem pti ve f or ce of p ar ti cul arl aw s, i t ca n be sai d that Congr ess has m ani fest ed i ts i ntent that states be pr ecl ud ed fro m en ac tinga nd e nf o r cingo ve r ti m e pr o vi si o ns a g ains t th e ra i l ro ads. W e fi nd thatthi s i s the ca se. Despit e Congr ess ’ s co m prehensi ve federa lregul ati on o f the r ai l w ays and the preem pti ve sw eep o fm any of these l aws , the I DOL t r i es t o de fea t W CL’ s cl ai m b y a r g ui ng th a tC o n g r e s s h a s n e v e r s o u g h t t o p r e e mpts t a t e l a ws concerni ng wages, and i nstea d has l i m i ted i ts preem pti ve in te n t t o th e re so lu tio n of lab or d isp u te s, Ha w a iia n A irlines, 5 1 2 U .S . at 2 52 -53 , m at te rs of ra il saf et y, see Ho ur s o f Se rv i ce Act of19 07, 34 S tat
. 1 415 ( codi fi ed as am ended at 4 9 U .S .C . §§ 2 11 01 -21 10 8); s e eal s o F e de r a lR a i l r o a d S a fety Acto f1 9 7 0 , 8 4 S t a t
. 9 7 1 ( c o di fi e d a s a men de d a t4 9 U. S
. C. § 2 0101 ets eq . ) , and une mpl o y men ti ns ur a nc e , 4 5 U. S
. C. § 363(b)

. W hi l e W CL co unters thatthi s “ bro ad panoply ” o f fede ral legi slation evince s a sim il ar i nt e n t on Con gress’s22 N o. 07

- 3554 par t to pr ee m pt st at e r egul ati o n o fo ve r ti m e wag es , the I D O L i s correct th at C ong ress’s p reem p tive i nt en t is m ore read il y ap p aren t w ith resp ect to the se oth er sub j ect m atters th an i t is w ith resp ect to over t im e w ages. Th is, how ever, is uns urp rising, gi ven that the p reem p tive stat u t e s referenced abo ve al ls ought to affi rm ati vel y i m pose a unif or m federa lst an dard ove r a s peci fi c ar ea, wh i l e with o ve r ti m e w ages , the c o nt en ti o n i s th atCo ng r es s i nte nde d t o l ea ve th at m at te r c o m pl et ely unr egul at ed, a nd l e fts ol e l y t o p r i v a t e n e g o t i a t i o ns b e t we e n the r a i l r o a ds and i ts em plo yee s. Of c ours e, the m er e absence o ffedera ll egi sl ati on with r espec t t o o ve r ti m e wag es i s no t en o ug h t o fi nd a c o ngr es sio n al in te n t t o p re em p t t h is field , s in c e “ [t]h er e is no federa lpre - em pti on in vacuo , witho ut a const i tuti onal text ora feder alst atute to as ser t i t. ” Pue r t o Ri co D ep’ tof C o ns um e rAf

f ai rs v. Is l a Pe t r ol e um Corp. , 48 5 U.S
. 49 5, 50 3 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. B u t, “ [ w] h e r e a c o mp r e h e n s i v e fe d e r a ls c h e me i nt en ti o na l l y l ea ve s a po r ti o n o f th e r egul at ed fi el d wi th o ut c o n t r o l s, the n the pr e- empti ve infer en cec a nb e d r a wn

—not fro m federa li nacti on a l one, but fr om i nacti on j oi ned w i th acti on. ” Id. S uch i s the ca se here

. In 191 6, Congr ess passe d th e Ad amso n Act, whi chper m an en tly e st ab l i sh ed th e ei ght- hour w or k day f ordeter m ini ng the co m pensati on f o r r a i l r o a d e m p l o y e e s , w h i l e l e a v i n g th e m a t t e r o fc o mp en sation to p rivate nego tiations fol low ing a tem p orary w age - fre eze . A dam son A ct o f19 16 , 39 S tat
. 72 1 ( codi fi ed as a m en ded at 49 U
. S
. C. § 2 83 01 )
. As di sc us se d b y the S u p r e me C o u r ti n Wi l s o n v . New , a case deci ded the yea r after the A dam son A ct w as enacte d, thi s l aw w as passe dN o. 07

- 3554 23

Th i s wa ge fr e e z e pr ov i s i ons t a t e d: 13 That pend ing the re port ofthe com m is si on herei n prov ided f or and for a p eri od o fthi rty d ays thereafterthe com pensati on ofrail w ay em ployees subjec t t o thi s A ctf or a s tandard ei ght

- hourw or kday s hal l notb e re duce d bel ow the pr es en t stan d ard d ay ’ s w ag e, and f or a l l n ecessar y tim e in exc ess ofe i ghtho ur s s uc h e m pl oye es s ha ll b e p aid a ta ra t e not l es s thanthe pr o r at a r at e f or s uc h s t anda rd e i ght

- hour w o rk d a y . Wil so n , 243 U.S. at 344 ( quoting the Ad am son Act ofSeptem ber 3 , 5, 1 9 1 6 , 39 St a t. 7 2 1 , c. 43 6 ). afterthe Pre si dent peti ti oned Congr ess to ta ke l egi sl ati ve a c t i o n t o a v e r ta c o u n t r y - wi d e s t r i k e b y a l lr a i l r o a d e mpl o y ee s. 2 43 U. S. 3 32 , 3 40

- 43 ( 19 17 )
. The i m petus f o r the th r ea te ne d s tr i k e was a de m an d b y e m pl o y ee s that th e com pl et i o n o f1 00

- m i l e ta sk s be r edu ce d fr o m a s tand ard ten- hour day pl us extra p ay f oraddit i onalti m e, to an eig h t-h ou r d ay w ith ov er tim e w ag es at tim e a n d a h alf. Id. at 340. The l aw passe d by C on gr ess perm anentl y e stabl i shed the ei ght- hour w or kday forr ai l ro ad em plo yees, w hi l e fre ezing wages for a m axi m um o fte n m onths, pend i ng a com m i ssi on’ s r epor t o n the ei ght-ho ur work

day’ s i m pact o n the ra i l w ays . Id. at3 43-46 (c i tingthe 13 A d am son A ct of Septe m ber 3, 5, 1916 , 39 St at. 721 , c . 436). I n Wi l s on , the S upr eme Co ur t, i n a ffi rm ing the c o ns ti tu
tio nal i ty ofthi s t em pora rywage fre eze , o bser ved that Congre ss i ntended the w age pro vi si on t o be “ not perm anent but tem pora ry, lea vi ng the em plo yer s a nd em plo yee s24 N o. 07

- 3554 fr ee a s to the s ubj ec t o fwag es t o g o ve r n the i r r el at i o ns b y the i r o wn a g r e e men t s a ft e r the s pe c i fi e d t i me. ” Id. at 345- 46. Based on thi s pre cedent, the i ssue ofo ver ti m e wages f or ra i l ro ad em plo yee s is n ot an a re a where Congre ss has si m plynegl ecte d to acto r “w i thdrawn fro m al lsubst anti al i nvol vem ent. ” See P uerto R ico D ept. o f C o nsu m er A

ffa irs, 485 U .S. at 5 03 . In st ea d , th e Su p re m e C o u rth as fou n d th at it wa s C o n g r e s s ’ s i n t e n tth a tr a i l r o a d e mp l o y e r s a n d e mp l o y e e s n e g o t i a t e th e i s s u e o fw a g e s , i n c l u d i n go v e r t i me pay b e y o n d th e e i g h t
- h o u r ma r k, “ fr e e ” fr o m r e g u l a t i o n, f ol l owing Congre ss’ te m pora ryr est ra i nt o n w age adj ustm ents. The I DO L argues that thi s r eadi ng o f t h e Ad am son A ct i s too bro ad, and f ai l s to appreci ate that th e la w was pa ss ed in r esponse to a unique a nd part i cul ar i zed thr eat to ra i l w ay oper ati ons. W hi l e w e re cogni ze that the threa ten ed strike w as th e cata lyst f or pas sing th e law , the A ct’s sco pe now reac hes b eyo nd the dispute g i vi ng r i se to i ts en ac tment, a s evide nc ed bythe f ac t th atthe l aw r emai ns ineffe c t n ea rly a c en tu ry lat er . See A ct o fOct. 11 , 19 96, Pub. L. No. 1 04

- 28 7, Oc t. 1 1, 1 99 6, 1 10 S ta t. 3 39 4 ( co d ify i ng the Ad am son A ct, witho ut subst anti ve changes , at49 U
. S. C. § 2 8301 )
. A ccor dingl y, Congre ss’ s intent to l eave the m att ero fwages s ubj ect to pri vate neg oti ati ons, as ar ti cul at ed bythe Co ur t i n Wi l s on , part i cul ar l y when pla ced ag ai nst the b ac kd ro p ofCongr ess ’ s per vasi ve re gul ati on o fthe ra i l w ays and i ts cl eari n te nt thatm uch o fth is r egul at i o n a l l o w f o r no s ta te s uppl ement, l ea ds us to concl ud e that I l l i nois’s o ver ti m e r egul ati ons, asN o. 07

- 3554 25

Our dec i s i on i s c ons i s t en twith th e Si xth Ci rc ui t ’ s opi ni on 14 fi ft ee n ye ar s ag o i n R .J. C or m an R ai l ro ad Co. , w hich “h[ e] ld that the c ongr es s i ona l pur pos e beh i nd the A dam s on Actan d Congres s’ s longst and ing decis ion t o regulat e rai lr oad s on a nati onal lev el m ak e it reaso na b le to in fe r t h at C on g ress ha s im p lied ly p r e e mp t e d th e a r e a o fo v e r t i me r e g u l a t i o n f o r r a i l r o a d e mp loy ees.” 999 F.2d at154. Alth ou g h w e reco g niz e tha t arg u m en ts of con g ressi o n a l acq u iescen ce ar e g en era lly d eserv ing of litt le w ei g h t, s e e L e a l

- Ro d r ig uez v . INS , 990 F. 2d 939, 951 n. 16 ( 7th Cir

. 1993 ) ( c i t i ng Patt erso n v. M cLea n C re di tUn i on , 4 9 1 U. S
. 164, 175 n. 1 ( 1989) ) , thati s not ex cl usi vely the cas e, see Uni t ed Sta t es v. Sanapaw , 3 6 6 F
. 3 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 5 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) (“ C o n g r e ss ’s th i r t y- ye a r a c q ui e s c e nc e t o a de fi ni t i ono fm a r ij ua na that i nc l udes al l Can nabi s c ont ai ni ng THC i ndi c at es thatthe c our t s have pro per l y i nt er pre t ed the Act
. ”) , and we thus n ote that f or fiftee n years , the Six th Circui t’ s opinion h a s p ers is ted w ithout m eri ti ng a res pon se by C ongress . In f act, thr ee year s afterou r siste r Circ uit f ound thatthe Ad am son Act provided the pr i m ar y basis for fi ndi ng s t at e ove rt i m e re gul at i on ofthe ra i l ways pr ee m pt ed, C ongre s s , r athe r thanc l ar i fyi ng o r revis ing the preem ptive s cope ofthe Ad am son Act, i nst ead co d ifie d th a t la w at 49 U .S.C
. § 2 8 3 0 1 , a s p a rt o f an A ct “[t ]o c odi fy without sub stan tiv e cha ng e law s related to tran sp ort ati on and to im prov e the U n ite d S tat es Cod e. ” Act ofO ct
. 11, 1996, P u b . L . N o . 10 4 -2 8 7, O ct . 11 , 19 9 6 , 11 0 St a t. 3 3 8 8
. Rec en tc ongr es s i ona l ac t i on t o cl ar i fy the pr ee m pt i ve s weep of o th e r r a i l wa y l a ws a l s o i n di c a t e s th a tC o n g r e s s ’ s s e em i ng ac qui es c en c e t o the Si xth Ci rc ui t ’ s opi ni on was no tm er el y the resu lt of an o v ersi g h t o n C on g ress’ s pa rt. In 2 00 7, Co ng ress (co n tin u ed ...) a pp l i e d t o i nt e r s t a t e r a i l wa y s , a r e p r e e mpt e d. 1426 N o. 07

- 3554

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 14 am ended the Fe der al Rai l ro ad S afety Act ’ s pr ee m pt i on prov is i on i n o rde r t o c l arify thats t at e- l aw ca us es ofac t i on s ee ki ng dam ages f or i njuri es s tem m ing fro m a violat ion ofrai lway s a fe t y ors e c ur ity s t a nd a r ds we r e n otpr e e m pt e d. 4 9 U. S
. C. § 2 01 06(b). T his am en dm en twas pas s ed i n r es pons e t o the Eighth Circuit ’ s concl usi on that the Fed eral Railroad Safety Act p reem p ted state l a w p erso na l injur y claim s related to a tra in d er a ilm en t in M in o t, N o rt h D a k o ta
. L u n d ee n v . C a n a d ia n P a c ific R ai l w ay Co. , 07- 1656, 2008 U
. S. Ap p. LE X IS 14210, * 6- *12 ( 8th Cir

. Ju l y 2 , 2 0 0 8 ) (d i sc u ss i n g th i s h i st o r y , i n c l u d i n g th a tC o u r t ’s ea rl i erdec i s i on i n Lun dee n v. C anadi an Paci f i c Rai l w ay Co. , 447 F. 3d 606, 615 ( 8th Cir

. 2006))
. As al ready noted, no s im il ar ac t i on f ol l owed the Si xth Ci rc ui t ’ s opi ni on. A lthoug h w e have arri ved at our concl usi on that federal law preem pts the app li ca b ili ty ofIl li nois ’ s overti m e l aw to int ers t at e ra i l ro ads i ndepe n de n t o f C ongr es s ’ s appa re nt ac qui es c en c e t o R
. J
. C or m an R ai l ro ad Co. , Congr es s ’ s a c t i ons s ubs equen tt o thatopi ni on re affi rm our dec i s i on to j oi n o ur sister C i rcu it in ho ld ing tha t field p reem p tion is ap p licab le in th is c ir cu m sta n ce . I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM th e d istri ct cou rt’s g r a n to fs u mma r y j ud g men t f o r WC L a n d d e n i a lo fs u mm ar y j udg m en t f or th e I DOL o n the a l te r na te g r o und that federa ll aw pre em pts 82 0 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 1 0 5 /4 a ’ s a ppl i ca bi l i ty t o i nt e r s t a t e r a i l r o a d s l i k e WCL, a nd R EMA ND f o r the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o di s mi s s Co un t s 3 a nd 4N o. 07

- 3554 27 f orwant ofj uri sdic ti on a nd i ssue an i nj uncti on a nd decl ara ti on co nsi ste nt with thi s o pini on a s t o Counts 1 and 2.

8- 26- 08