Document: 480 U.S. 557 107 S.Ct. 1410 94 L.Ed.2d 563 ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitionerv.Jim BUELL. No. 85-1140. Argued Dec. 1, 1986. Decided March 24, 1987. Syllabus Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), railroad workers can sue their employers for personal injuries suffered at hands of or fellow employees. The Railway Labor (RLA) provides submission minor labor disputes in industry to binding arbitration. Respondent, a carman employed by petitioner, filed an FELA suit District Court, alleging that petitioner had condoned his harassment employees, causing him suffer emotional breakdown. Court granted summary judgment, holding RLA precluded remedy. Appeals reversed, respondent's claims were not arbitrable under RLA, and action was therefore precluded. Additionally, although question been neither raised parties nor addressed held purely injury is compensable FELA. Held: 1. fact caused conduct may have subject arbitration does deprive employee right bring damages. only substantive protection against independent employer's obligations its collective-bargaining agreement, but also affords injured remedy suited needs, unlike limited relief backpay reinstatement available through Although exclusive "in least some circumstances," it situations enacted address. Pp. 564-566. 2. Petitioner's argument that, even if many workplace are actionable FELA, requires narrow "emotional injury" exception be carved out because close relationship such must brought persuasive. There no basis assuming allowing actions will wreak havoc with RLA's general scheme, absent intolerable conflict between two statutes, this unwilling read as repealing any part 566-567. 3. record insufficient preliminary stage allow Appeals, express opinion on ultimate chance recovery claim. whether necessarily abstract point law pure statutory construction susceptible all-inclusive "yes" "no" answer. It might require exacting scrutiny each case's facts light developing legal principles. 567-571. 771 F.2d 1320 (CA 9 1985), affirmed part, vacated remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered unanimous Court. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D.C., petitioner. James R. McCall, Sacramento, Cal., respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 A has duty use reasonable care furnishing employees safe place work. That recognized common law, see Bailey v. Central Vermont Co., 319 350, 352-353, 63 1062, 1063-1064, 87 L.Ed. 1444 (1943), given force 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., confirmed some, all, agreements. Breaches times give rise typical which (RLA), 44 Stat. 577, amended, 151 sets forth procedures. result railroad's would appear cause case possibility pursuing grievance deprives action. 2 * Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Company (Railroad), complaint he severe Railroad's failure 3 "to provide [him] work, including, to, having harass, threaten, intimidate [him], particular, foreman Ed Wright threatened, harassed, intimidated maliciously oppressively, negligently, intentionally, order mental suffering. All said acts approved [the Railroad] direct proximate negligence intentional acts, [he] breakdown, thus inflicting damages hereinafter alleged." App. 7. 4 Railroad answer, asserting, among other defenses, sole before National Adjustment Board (Adjustment Board) pursuant RLA. Id., 10-13. 5 Through ensuing discovery, identified various incidents embraced within complaint's allegations,1 established agreement union allowed prosecute successive levels appeal up including mutually Board.2 Discovery respondent certain associated physical disorders, required hospitalization 17 days. 6 then moved dismissal judgment. ground motion, own words, "there matter jurisdiction district court entertain concerning dispute 'carrier' employees." Record Doc. 42, p. 6. accepted argument, judgment "the availability covered based alleged negligent maintain workplace." Pet. Cert. 11a. reversed. 1320, 1323-1324 (CA9 1985). parties3 Court,4 proclaimed relevant "issue, one first impression circuit, employee's wholly stemming from employment [FELA]." 1321. concluded authorize injury. Because important role these statutes play railway relations, we certiorari. 476 1103, 106 1946, 90 356 (1986). II 7 In 1906,5 Congress federal who employer primary purpose eliminate number traditional defenses tort liability facilitate meritorious cases. expressly prohibits carriers adopting regulation, entering into contract, limit liability.6 coverage statute defined broad language,7 construed more broadly.8 We generally remedial statute, adopted "standard liberal accomplish [Congress'] objects." Urie Thompson, 337 163, 180, 69 1018, 1030, 93 1282 (1949). 8 contrast, comprehensive framework resolution industry. Enacted 1926, text mention otherwise deal liability. Rather, establishes elaborate administrative procedures both major disputes.9 resolving "major disputes"—those arising "out formation change collective bargaining agreements covering rates pay, rules, working conditions," Detroit & T.S.L.R. Co. Transportation Union, 396 142, 145, n. 5, 294, 296, 24 325 (1969)—are case. "minor dispute" provisions relevant, however, argues underlying dangerous condition could grieved dispute—one "growing grievances interpretation application 153, First (i). Minor initially dealt internal processes, settled there, submitted division Board, Public Law board chosen parties. Judicial review Boards' determinations characterized " 'among narrowest known law.' Union Pacific Sheehan, 439 89, 91, 99 399, 401, 58 354 (1978) (citation omitted). makes three arguments support contention injuries. First, forum conditions Second, should Finally, responds Appeals' discussion term "injury" used includes injury, not. reject arguments.10 As third focuses scope believe insufficiently developed us, chances III 10 asserts defects corrected resorting machinery disputes. Indeed, case, though abortive steps direction actually taken. Thus, barred. find merit argument. opportunity Presumably host practices cured avoided timely invocation machinery.11 See Yawn Southern 591 312, 317 (CA5 1979). But never considered bar bringing claim injuries, persuaded us do so now. 11 This has, numerous occasions, declined hold individual are, arbitration, barred statutes. See, e.g., McDonald West Branch, 466 284, 104 1799, 80 302 (1984); Barrentine Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 728, 101 1437, 67 641 (1981); Alexander Gardner-Denver 415 36, 1011, 39 147 (1974). analysis quite distinct, theory running cases notwithstanding strong policies encouraging "different considerations apply where rights designed minimum guarantees workers." Barrentine, supra, U.S., 737, S.Ct., 1443. 12 principle instructive us. seems Board.12 inconceivable intended worker disabling denied simply able process successful conclusion. Judge J. Skelly concluded, . resulting railroad." Barnes Belt R.R. Comm'n City New York, F.Supp. 200, 203 (ED La.1951). 13 true situations" exclusive. Andrews Louisville Nashville 406 320, 325, 92 1562, 1565, 32 95 (1972). Andrews, state wrongful discharge squarely breach agreement. mechanism mandatory type dispute, courts foreclosed addressing properly arise serve award co-worker's negligence. 14 Unwilling rely solely amici argue, alternative, they fear really complaining unhappiness everyday disputes, ask ill-defined class Even authority rewrite manner, appropriate so. scheme arbitration,13 Morton Mancari, 417 535, 550, 2474, 2482, 41 290 decide today cognizable stress controls inquiry, far worker's concerned, Congress' enactment effect. IV 15 contends reversed erroneously "wholly problem our posture comes exact nature allegedly tortious activity, extent suffered. mentioned, petitioner's motion file RLA.14 Respondent's memorandum, course, sought respond alone, did FELA.15 16 answerable without Assuming, have, jurisprudence gleans guidance common-law developments, 174, 1026, recover rest variety subtle intricate distinctions related character activity. For example, while most States now recognize infliction distress,16 vary degree intent establish liability,17 level manifestation recovery.18 Moreover, consider context significant, placing special emphasis workplace.19 addition, distress,20 too objective symptomatology victim demonstrate.21 These issues exemplary doctrinal divergences area. short, areas pronouncements area bow precise principles particular hand. Since, fault either party, know what all those cannot begin allegation petitioners liable FELA.22 Given there reason issue. Without agreeing disagreeing merits issue, affirm rejects preclusion advanced Railroad. 18 Accordingly, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 19 ordered. Most involved Wright, immediate supervisor. He insisted carmen complete car inspection reports improper directed help remove company property yard, repeatedly threatened respondent, obviously humiliate Respondent several requested prepare written discussed complaints Railroad, formal ever initiated. One captions brief stated reservation "[t]he issue plaintiff's mandatory, NRAB." Brief Appellee 84-2288 (CA9), 18. At hearing dismiss stated: "The today's calendar defendant's grounds raises Court's jurisdiction." Tr. original 1906 enactment, 34 232, struck down Howard Illinois 207 463, 28 141, 52 297 (1908), applied intrastate well interstate commerce. 1908, another version, 35 65, commerce, included modifications. Section codified, provides, part: "Any rule, device whatsoever, shall enable carrier exempt itself created chapter, void." 55. "Every engaging commerce person suffering whole officers, agents, carrier, defect insufficiency, due negligence, cars, engines, appliances, machinery, tract, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, equipment." 51. respect causation, test jury case" "simply proofs justify conclusion played slightest, producing death sought." Rogers Missouri 352 500, 506, 77 443, 448, 493 (1957). spirit construction, cover torts mentions Jamison Encarnacion, 281 635, 641, 50 440, 442, 74 1082 (1930); Lancaster Norfolk Western 773 807, 812-813 (CA7 cert. pending, 85-1702; Slaughter Atlantic Coast Line 112 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 912, cert denied, 371 827, 83 48, 65 (1962); Annot., Intentional Tort, A.L.R.3d 442 (1966). enacting RLA: "Congress endeavored promote stability labor-management relations national providing effective efficient remedies railroad-employee Gunther San Diego A.E.R. [382 257, 86 368, 308 (1965) ]; Price, [360 601, 79 1351, 1460 (1959) Slocum Delaware, L. W.R. 339 239 [70 795] (1950). tribunal consisting management secure prompt, orderly final settlement daily regarding conditions. U.S.] 611 [79 1356]; Elgin E.R. Burley, 327 661, 664 [66 721, 722, 928] (1946). essential keep so-called 'minor' courts. Trainmen Chicago, I.R. 353 30, 40 [77 640, 622] (1957)." 94, 402, (1978). analyzing precludes depend alternative turns, source (1943); Lavender Kurn, 645, 66 740, 916 (1946); Ellis 329 649, 598, 91 572 (1947); cf. Gateway Mine Workers, 414 629, 38 583 Lewy 799 1281, 1295, 1297 1986) (RLA reinstatement); Division, Award 16111 (Feb. 23, 1953) ("[T]here correct practice wrong, extend money damage"). Counsel represented awards "damages sense back pay," "award kinds FELA" Oral Arg. 11. Petitioner predicts virtually pursue since 'every believes legitimate doubtless anguish.' (quoting Magnuson Burlington Northern, 576 1367, 1369 930, 318, 323 (1978)). amicus large portion 183,800 1985 pursued instead, creating "potential doubling volume civil filings courts." Association American Railroads al. Amici Curiae 16. parade horribles mistakenly assumes significant percentage 18, infra, unconscionable abuse prerequisite recovery. Farmer Carpenters, 430 290, 97 1056, 338 (1977), distress pre-empted Relations (NLRA), pointed risk interference NLRA minimized permitted "recovery sustained 'outrageous' conduct." 305, 1066. Bar Association's Special Committee Tort Towards Jurisprudence Injury: Continuing Creation System Substantive 5-17 (1984) (courts concerned becoming upsets); Restatement (Second) Torts 46(d) (hereafter Restatement) (discussing "outrage" element). nn. 4, supra. ruling explicitly juncture fell instead "[sought] avoid contending resolve lies elsewhere." 44, 4. Rules Civil Procedure, set complaint. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8; Conley Gibson, 355 41, 47-48, 78 99, 102-103, Had supplement contest motion. 56(c). explained last Term, when, "after adequate time discovery upon motion," party seeking satisfied "responsibility informing identifying portions 'the pleadings, depositions, answers interrogatories, admissions file, together affidavits, any,' demonstrate absence genuine material fact." Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 317, 323, 2548, 2553, 265 described 46 [(Second) Torts] safely rule United States. 1977, 37 jurisdictions tort." Leithead Colloid 721 P.2d 1059, 1066 (Wyo.1986). 46(1) "intentionally recklessly" standard. Many test. Watts Golden Age Nursing Home, 127 Ariz. 255, 258, 619 1032, 1035 (1980) (recklessness); Davidson Westminster, Cal.3d 197, 209, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 259, 649 894, 901 (1982) Freihofer Hearst Corp., N.Y.2d 135, 143, 490 N.Y.S.2d 735, 741, N.E.2d 349, (1985) (recklessness). Others different standards. M.B.M. Counce, 268 Ark. 269, 277, 596 S.W.2d 681, 685-686 (willful wanton); Anderson Prease, 445 A.2d 612, 613 (D.C.App.1982) (intention inferred outrageousness conduct); Hall May Department Stores 292 Or. 131, 637 126, 129 (1981) (indifference gross enough); Hasley, Wis.2d 572, 576, 273 N.W.2d 319, 321 (1979) ("purposely"). leading commentary states "[i]n great majority genuineness disturbance evidenced illness serious character." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, Owen, Prosser Keeton 64 (5th ed. 1984). Institute urges long "genuine severe," bodily harm required. 46(k). Restatement's approach, see, Poulsen Russell, 300 289, 291 (Iowa 1981); Vicnire Ford Motor Credit 401 148, 154 (Me.1979). Others, demanding scrutiny. Hubbard Press International, 330 428, 437-440 (Minn.1983); Hassing Wortman, 214 Neb. 154, 158-166, 333 765, 767-771 (1983). Hall, Or., P.2d, 126; Contreras Crown Zellerbach 88 Wash.2d 565 1173, 1176-1177 (1977); Alcorn Anbro Engineering, 493, 498, 2, 88, 90, 468 216, 218, (1970). 20 plaintiff unconnected actual impact, abandoned rule. Gates Richardson, 719 193, 195, (Wyo.1986) (citing jurisdictions); §§ 313, 436, 436A; Bell, Bell Tolls: Toward Full Recovery Psychic Injury, 36 U.Fla.L.Rev. 333, 336-340 Note, Administering Negligent Infliction Emotional Distress: Synthesis, Cardozo L.Rev. 487 21 Wyoming Supreme recently observed: "[A]mong distress, variation allow." Gates, 199-200. Leong Takasaki, 55 Haw. 398, 403, 520 758, 762 (1974) (no showing severity); Barnhill Davis, 104, 108 1981) (severe injury); Corso Merrill, 119 N.H. 647, 659, 300, (objective symptoms). Some symptoms negligent, intentional, distress. Vicnire, 157. 22 appears once fleshed motions eventual trial, present all. course deposition, testified episode assault co-workers. 101-102. claimed addition psychological illness. 7-8.

Category: 7