Opinion ID: 391158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DBL and the RLA

Text: 51 In rejecting the airlines' contention that the DBL is preempted by the RLA, the district court reasoned that the DBL reflects a state interest in eliminating sex discrimination that is so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that Congress could not have intended to preempt it. 485 F.Supp. at 308-09. 52 Although we agree with the airlines that the DBL is not necessarily a law of the sort so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility as to fall within the second exception of San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, supra; cf. Lodge 76, supra, 427 U.S. at 137 n.2, 96 S.Ct. at 2551 n.2 (local interest exception predicated on state's power over such traditionally local matters as public safety and order and the use of streets and highways), our agreement does not mean that plaintiffs' RLA contention should be upheld. The local interest exception applies only when the disputed state law governs conduct that comes within the ambit of federal labor law. For the reasons we have discussed in Part II.C. above with respect to the HRL, we conclude that the DBL governs matters outside the intended reach of the RLA and that the RLA therefore does not preempt the DBL.