Opinion ID: 2612478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smith's Other Claims.

Text: (7) Smith sued Brown, as well as SEG, for infliction of emotional distress and defamation. We believe that the result as to Brown must be the same as to SEG. These claims are simply Smith's wrongful termination claim in other garb. The facts Smith alleged to underlie these causes of action are essentially the same as those which underlie her action for wrongful discharge (i.e., the fact and circumstances of her discharge). Smith alleges no significant additional tortious activity on the part of Brown or SEG. [12] We look to the substance of the claim, not its characterization, to determine whether an action is preempted by federal labor law. ( DeTomaso v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 517, 527 [235 Cal. Rptr. 292, 733 P.2d 614], cert. denied 484 U.S. 829 [98 L.Ed.2d 60, 108 S.Ct. 100], citing Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (1972) 406 U.S. 320 [32 L.Ed.2d 95, 92 S.Ct. 1562].) Because Smith's claimed damages for infliction of emotional distress and from defamation all flow from her allegedly wrongful dismissal, these causes of action are barred by the LMRDA for the same reasons that her cause of action for wrongful discharge is barred. ( Ibid. ) We need not, and do not, decide whether the same would have been the case if, in connection with the emotional distress and defamation causes of action, significant additional tortious activity had been alleged against SEG or Brown. We recognize that our holding has the inevitable consequence of denying to Smith, and to other potential plaintiffs in similar circumstances, a remedy which is otherwise available to some classes of employees in this state. However, in enacting the LMRDA, Congress simply was not concerned with perpetuating appointed union employees in office at the expense of an elected president's freedom to choose his own staff. ( Finnegan v. Leu, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 442 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 248].) We are thus compelled to recognize that the wide scope of federal regulation of labor unions does not permit [the] application [of all of California wrongful discharge law] to employees of unions. ( Tyra v. Kearney, supra, 153 Cal. App.3d 921, 927 (conc. opn. of Crosby, J.).)