Legal Document

512 U.S. 107114 S.Ct. 2068129 L.Ed.2d 93 Karen LIVADAS, Petitioner,v.Victoria BRADSHAW, California Labor Commissioner. No. 92-1920. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 26, 1994. Decided June 13, Syllabus * law requires employers to pay all wages due immediately upon an employee's discharge, Code § 201; imposes a penalty for refusal promptly, 203; and places responsibility enforcing these provisions on Commissioner Labor. After petitioner Livadas's employer refused her owed but paid them few days later, she filed claim. The replied with form letter construing 229 as barring him from such claims behalf individuals like Livadas, whose employment terms conditions are governed by collective-bargaining agreement containing arbitration clause. Livadas brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that nonenforcement policy was pre-empted federal because it abridged rights National Relations Act (NLRA). District granted summary judgment, rejecting Commissioner's defense claim 301 Labor-Management Act, 1947 (LMRA). Although acknowledging NLRA gives right bargain collectively 1983 would supply remedy official deprivation right, Appeals reversed, concluding no had been infringed case reduced assertion misinterpreted state law, namely 229. Held: 1. is law. Pp. ____. (a) This fundamentally different Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm'n, 389 235, 239, 88 362, 366, 19 438, in which held rule predicating benefits refraining conduct protected labor interfered congressional purpose. policy, choose between rights, cannot be reconciled statutory scheme premised centrality collective bargaining desirability arbitration. (b) answers foregoing conclusion flow two significant misunderstandings First, must valid consistent irrelevant relationships leads wrong question: Pre-emption analysis turns policy's actual content its real effect not whether Federal Constitution or is, matter proper interpretation Second, argument "rational basis" supports distinction draws employees represented unions those who mistakes validity standard Equal Protection Due Process Clauses what Supremacy Clause requires: determination conflicts (c) Court's decisions according pre-emptive LMRA foreclose even colorable 203 here, since they establish section does broadly pre-empt nonnegotiable employee conferred law; claim's legal character, independent agreement, decides cause may go forward; when liability meaning contract dispute, bare fact consulted damage computation reason extinguish state-law See, e.g., Allis-Chalmers Corp. Lueck, 471 202, 105 1904, 85 206, Lingle Norge Division Magic Chef, Inc., 486 399, 108 1877, 100 410. Here, primary text deciding entitled calendar. only issue raised claim, wilfully failed promptly severance, question entirely agreement. Absent any indication there dispute over amount, simple need refer bargained-for wage rates computing irrelevant. (d) attempt before recast expressing "conscious decision" keep State's "hands off" agreements, either efforts resources more urgently needed others restraint will actually encourage arbitral processes favored rejected. If were animated first late-blooming rationales, emphasis avoid "interpret[ing]" "apply[ing]" agreements misplaced. Nor second asserted rationale convincing, enforcement turn struck contracting parties contractual rate arbitrable, simply have consented suggestion meant stimulate free-wheeling payments discharged workers contradicts 219, expressly categorically prohibits modification rules "private agreement." Even at face value, however, label poses special dangers advantages canceled out objectives undermined, laid rest professions governmental neutrality disputes. Similarly, vague assertions advances interests persuasive, has never suggested bias toward served forcing otherwise Fort Halifax Packing Co. Coyne, 482 1, 107 2211, 96 "opt-out" laws cited Commissioner, distinguished. 2. seek relief abridgment complete process agree That least imminent NLRA's structure, if provided so many words text, obligation respect part acting color amorphous. Moreover, Congress given intent actions Livadas's, caution here. See Golden State Transit Los Angeles, 493 103, 108-112, 110 444, 449-452, 420. 987 F.2d 552 (CA 9 1991), reversed. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Richard G. McCracken, San Francisco, CA, petitioner. Malcolm L. Stewart, Washington, DC, amicus curiae leave H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., Diego, respondent. Justice SOUTER 1 precludes private waiver minimum standards, (Commissioner Commissioner), ostensibly benefit employees. Respondent, Commissioner,1 construed further provision petitioner, We hold pre-empts abridging exercise employees' (NLRA Act), 29 151 et seq., redress unlawful enforce 1983. 2 Until discharge January 2, 1990, worked grocery clerk Vallejo, California, Safeway supermarket. subject union, Local 373 Food Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO. Unexceptionally, "[d]isputes application agreement," including grievances arising allegedly unjust suspension, binding Store Contract, & Workers Union, 373, AFL-CIO, Solano Napa Counties §§ 18.2, 18.3 (Mar. 1989-Feb. 29, 1992) (Food Contract).2 When notified demanded immediate payment her, guaranteed see Cal.Lab.Code Ann. 201 (West 1989),3 store manager refused, referring company practice making check mailed central corporate payroll office. On 5, received Safeway, full amount work through 3 9, against Standards Enforcement (DLSE Division), asserting liable sum equal three days' wages, delay date received.4 requested claim.5 4 By apparently dated February 7, take complaint: 5 "It our understanding working covered contains Section preclude adjudicating concerning 6 "Labor continue "same rate" until paid. In order was, necessary look 'apply' courts pointed exactly prohibit.6 App. 16. 7 made reference particular aspect unfit enforcement, position fairly taken DLSE claims, well other pegged rate, generally unavailable agreements.7 8 Rev.Stat. 1979, reflecting reading 229, conflicting NLRA, 49 Stat. 452, amended, 157, placed employer. She stressed about neither nor begun grievance proceeding penalty.8 sought declaration pre-empted, injunction adherence impermissible requiring (if time barred law) damages obtained moved time. judgment holding pre-emption cognizable City 420 (1989) (Golden II ) interfering see, 475 608, 106 1395, 89 616 (1986) I ), denying standard, timely final secured 203. 749 F.Supp. 1526 (NDCal.1990). treated (e.g., 229) rejected required (LMRA), 61 156, 185(a), read state-court resolution disputes turning agreements. explained "requires calendar, [collective-bargaining agreement]," F.Supp., 1536, relief. Id., 1540.9 10 A divided panel Ninth Circuit (1993). court acknowledged engage majority concluded infringed. reasoned based function keeping tribunals way interfere operation definition, dictates Noting did assert itself object courts' it, error could courts. 11 "penalized," then observed, stood "in same every comes seeking enforcement. Every . eligibility determination, risk get wrong." F.2d, 559. invoking "general policies law" strongly favoring reasoning that, "Congress want officials erring side whenever close call preempted." 560.10 12 certiorari, 510 U.S ----, 114 907, 127 97 (1994), address important questions implicated we now reverse. A. 13 interference 438 (1967), withholding unemployment solely unfair charge Board "direct tendency frustrate purpose Congress" and, "defeat handicap national objective withdraw[ing] because" engages encouraged NLRA. 366; also I, supra, U.S., 618, S.Ct., 1400-1401 (city condition franchise renewal settlement dispute). Nash.11 Just respondent Commission offered choice pursuing receiving compensation, presented having enforced exercising enter into unappetizing choice, conclude, intended Congress, infra, ultimately resolving Cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Massachusetts, 724, 755, 2380, 2397, 728 (1985) (state "neither encourage[s] discourage[s] processes").12 B 14 conflates challenges purports rest, assuming also. But logic, issuing general search warrants justified adopted implement statute codifying word-for-word "good faith" exception warrant requirement recognized Leon, 468 897, 104 ,S.Ct. 3405, 82 677 (1984). relationship event, analysis, rather, respondent's rights. (1967) (holding administrative interpreting presumably insurance "labor disputes" include proceedings NLRB complaints); 561 (Kozinski, dissenting).13 15 Having lead us question, proposes approach answering defending drawn challenged interpretation, not, supported basis," Brief Respondent 17. requires. power tax less destroy, McCulloch Maryland, Wheat. 316, L.Ed. 579 (1819), merely legislature undoubtedly rational "legitimate" interest raising revenue. cases, Clause, office pass reasonableness (city's desire remain "neutral" determine pre-emption). It instead decide "stands obstacle accomplishment execution purposes objectives" Brown Hotel Employees, 491, 501, 3179, 3185, (1984) (internal quotation marks citation omitted).14 16 say, course, several rationales urged amici beside point If, most obviously, compelled argues hardly say simultaneously, pre-empted; least, task one harmonizing entertain justifications claimed, constitutional open-ended balancing act, weighing intensity local feeling, id., 503, 3186, justification can sometimes help discern purpose, "ultimate touchstone" enquiry. Malone White Motor Corp., 435 497, 504, 98 1185, 1189-1190, 55 443 (1978) omitted); New York Telephone Dept. Labor, 440 519, 533, 99 1328, 1337, 59 553 (1979) (plurality opinion). 17 begin defenses mounted seems (or seemed recently, least) heart position: far being positively inclined, precluded suggests, emanation jurisprudence, marked repeated admonitions should steer clear 206 (1985). Because, runs (and told no-action letter), disposition union-represented entails "interpretation application" (since determining agreed) resort tribunal territory enacting 301, exclusively arbitrators. 18 reasoning, both functions serves prior effect. To sure, 30115 grant jurisdiction breach authorize development common-law decision, large assure arbitrate enforced, regardless vagaries lingering hostility extrajudicial resolution, Textile Lincoln Mills Ala., 353 448, 455-456, 77 912, 917-918, 972 (1957); Steelworkers Warrior Gulf Navigation Co., 363 574, 80 1347, 1409 (1960); Avco Machinists, 390 557, 559, 1235, 1237, 20 126 (1968) ("§ fashioned place sanctions behind disputes"). And Teamsters Lucas Flour 369 95, 571, 593 (1962), corollary rule: while taking cases yield developing common lest potentially inconsistent interpretations jurisdictions. 103-104, 576-577.16 sensible "acorn" Flour, sprouted modestly recent Court, 210, 1911 ("[I]f animate their range extend beyond suits violations"), yet become, sufficiently "mighty oak," 622, 1402-1403 (REHNQUIST, dissenting), cover seeks contrary, applied animating frustrated purporting "questions relating agreed, consequences breaches 211, 1911, parties' renege promises "relabeling" tort duties assumed 1915; Republic Steel Maddox, 379 650, 652, 614, 616, 580 (1965) ("[F]ederal individual wishing use procedure agreed union mode redress") (emphasis omitted). Lueck 410 (1988), underscored law,17 character "independent" 213, 1912 "precisely set facts" pursued, Lingle, 410, 1883) forward.18 Finally, course litigation plainly require extinguished, 413, n. 12, 1885, ("A may, contain information might helpful worker prevailing suit entitled"). 21 These principles As aptly "willfully fail[ed] pay" 1989), embodied There "dispute" entitled, makes plain mere "look to" defeated 301. 12.19 22 Beyond penalty, any) Safeway. here purported away protections 203, said (especially view 219) " 'clear unmistakable' 409-410, 1883, (quoting Edison NLRB, 460 693, 708, 103 1467, 1477, 75 387 (1983)) consider effect, understood pledge claims. Gilmer Interstate/Johnson Lane 500 20, 35, 111 1647, 1657, 26 (1991); cf. Contract 18.8. suggestions indications found, invoke defend effort factors account enforcement.20 C 23 Before confine herself Indeed, largely putting aside position, cast terms, decision," 14, Division's latter, ambitious vigorously up amici, warn invalidation disputed sound death knell other, measures treat differently respect. 24 surely bar considering alternative explanations, Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475, 6, 90 1153, 1156-1157, 25 491 (1970) (party basis relied below), note, often overlap enacted awkwardly inexact. frugal conserve money protection emphasis, litigation, "interpret" "apply" convincingly defended giving "benefit bargain," 18, assuring promise kept circumvented. Under resolved (the struck), Gilmer, 1652, (arbitrable) dispute. Rather, all. permissibly presume arbitrated, 1657 (employees "had arbitrators authorized resolve claims"),21 goes still further. "positive assurance," Gulf, 582, 1352-1353, intend arbitration, 18.8 (direct involving submitted "to agency empowered" it), deny stated nonetheless contained "an clause" would, view, entail "interpretation," agreement's terms. Such irrebuttable presumption easily described "bargain." finally suggest provisions) own workers. suggestion, slips tether California's goal really subjects, enactment prohibiting agreement" very odd pursue it.22 Compare 227.3 1989) (allowing arrive vacation pay). short, coherent. 27 labels thereby advanced much support former takes discussed earlier, claimants "rational," need" than latter. While invalid precisely exercised undermined. Life, 756, 2397 ("It Wagner head understand penalized chosen join preventing benefitting regulations imposing minimal standards nonunion employers"). Accordingly, observed widespread legislatures bestowing basic guarantees without singling members them) disability; 2397;23 accord, 411-412, 1884-1885. 28 do "neutrality" lay rest. re-described following "hands-off" city endorsing 1403 dissenting) weight scales economic warfare"), yet-to-be-decided Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. Caperton, 971 1148, 1154 (CA4 forbids "aid assistance" party arresting picketers violated trespass laws). pause long "encouraging" process. Denying safety "encourage" subject, applicable increased pickets, Creek, law's course. 757, 2398 (Congress "remove backdrop artificially create no-law area") internal omitted).24 precedent supporting broadest (1987), point. Maine allowed plant-closing severance mandated purport supposedly here: mention latitude "balance substantive self-determination regarding employment," 22, 2223, differs crucial respects "unexceptional police power," ibid. omitted), earlier case. Most fundamentally, equally, organization. All payment, negotiate providing benefits. 4, 2213-2214, Maine's plant closing relinquished act signing agreement), express 21, 2222-2223.25 30 attention number draw distinctions employees, D.C.Code 36-103 (1993) ("Unless specified [w]henever discharges employee, shall earned later day discharge"); 203(o) ("Hours [w]orked" Fair measured "express bona fide agreement"), virtually share feature absent something different. "opt out" statutes thus manifestly rights) forfeits his moment clause entered into. Edison, 1477. Hence, unusual irreconcilable structure shadow familiar narrowly opt-out provisions.26 III 31 determined find strong precedents below provides deprivation, citizen's "rights, privileges, immunities laws," States, require, affording violations statutes, norms. Thiboutot, 448 2502, 2504, 65 555 (1980). have, true, broad alleged violation provision, example, precatory impose "binding obligation[ ]" unit, Pennhurst School Hospital Halderman, 451 101 1531, 1544, 67 694 (1981), "vague amorphous" "deprivation" occurred strain judicial competence. Wright Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority, 479 418, 431-432, 766, 774-775, 781 (1987). make give rise comprehensive scheme. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority Sea Clammers Assn., 453 2615, 69 (1981). apart exceptional remains presumptively available claimed Dennis Higgins, 498 439, 443, 865, 868, 112 969 (1991). 32 Our controlled outright, heavily foreshadowed decision II. began recognition instance action, 108, 449-450, availability nature accorded ibid.27 difficulty concluding, before, Hill ex rel. Watson, 325 538, 1373, 1782 (1945), protects abridgement State, actors; obligations actors exceed competence decide; contrasted intricate absence interference, 108-109, 449-450. seriously freedom "peaceful methods pressure," 112, 451-452 omitted) implicit manner enumerated do. Ibid. yes, explaining "[a] product vague, ambiguous, incomplete statute." 33 asserts, clause, 10, cab State. sort company. Finding properly IV 34 wide berth declines rooted nonwaivable regard heavy-handed indeed, permit it. automatically defeats distinguishing others. enough direct detrimental effects pre-empted. accordingly. 35 Reversed. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. Bradshaw succeeded Lloyd Aubry, original named defendant substituted Rule 35.3. 18.1 defines "grievance" "dispute meaning, violation" "[i]n involve Agreement, submit herein empowered settlement." pertinent part: "If unpaid payable immediately." another governing frequency payments), "can [not] contravened written, oral, implied," although free frequently, greater amounts, ordained rules; 204.2 (executive, administrative, professional periods law). fails" comply strictures fails "any wages" "the thereof therefor commenced; days." 1989). form, Safeway's calculation owed, employer's late tender. 18. Chief DLSE, 79, 82(b) directly prosecute court, 98.3(a), or, alternative, initiate informal hearings auspices, 98(a), awarded, 98.1. appears distinguish modes proceeding, accordingly, refer, do, categorical "enforce" 218 states "[n]othing article limit claimant sue him," 218.5, authorizes attorney's fee awards disputes, somewhat risky prospect, event realistic avenue modest provides: "Actions [Labor 200-243] collection maintained existence arbitrate. apply Perry Thomas, 483, 2520, 426 (1987) (§ Arbitration policy). concerned identify allusion "courts" 1975 Appeal, Plumbing, Heating Piping Employers Council Howard, 53 Cal.App.3d 828, Cal.Rptr. 406 (1975), where "unpaid" he force, receive foreman's journeyman's. notes small minority lack setting mandating therefore infra; 411, 11, 1884, (1988) (noting 99% sampled clauses). file claiming improper obtaining reinstatement back pay. recovery depend claimant's termination just cause. Appeals, portion awarding monetary capacity likely Eleventh Amendment, Petitioner 43, 20. issues scope better left remand. dissent, Judge Kozinski countered focusing correct explored question. enquiry, dissent maintained, discretion (which does) doing (she not), line clauses (whose always 301) covered. Underscoring fact, scope, found wanting majority's "quasi-pre-emption" rationale, 562. "honest (though flagrant) mistake law," 563, squared requirements burdened class defined burden mistaken requires, "legitimate purpose" recognize duty imposed reach 158(d), works participate (1945) (State licensing agents). difference (who within "Machinists Machinists Wisconsin Employment 427 132, 2548, 396 (1976)) amicus, Solicitor General describes "conflict" pre-emption, Amicus Curiae 14-15 4) semantic, depending characterized (as self-help upheld 7. II, 110-112, 450-452, (emphasizing fundamental similarity rights). Neither Diego Building Trades Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775 (1959), safeguards certain conduct, picketing, prohibited Act. Despite similarities, permits withhold striking consideration underlying distinct statute, Title IX Social Security 3301 (1988 ed. Supp. IV); 501 seq.; 1101 seq. Thus, straightforward inappropriate. 536-540, 1339-1341, opinion); 549, 1345-1346 (BLACKMUN, concurring judgment). "like coercive forbidden in," argued Group 7-12, closely analogous engaged teach parallelism dispositive demands scrupulous evenhandedness States. Industry, Human Gould, 290, 1057, 1063, 223 debar multiple government contracting); compare (1986), Servette, 377 46, 49-54, 84 1098, 1101-1104, 121 (1964) (private actor refuse deal impending strike); Constr. Metro Dist. Associated Builders Contractors Mass./R.I., 507 113 1190, 122 565 functioning purchaser services, behaving do). consistently anti-trespass involved facially "neutrality statute"). "misinterpretation perfectly [in itself] provide grounds relief," follow misinterpretation results conflict opportunity nonfederal forum Monroe Pape, 365 167, 183, 81 473, 482, 492 (1961). Of extent deviated "clearly established" immunity liability, Davis Scherer, 197, 3012, 3020-3021, 139 "rationality" classification, rather objectives, saved happens, margins, "under-" "over-inclusive," i.e., burdening allowing highly "[s]uits contracts organization representing district parties. ." 185(a). Within sphere, power. (1968), "ar[ose] under" removal, 1441 IV)), despite petitioner's complaint appeared plead adequate so, explained, legislated 1884-1885, unlimited, 1353, (1960) ("arbitration submit"). contract-interpretation realm, (1965), disable nonpre-empted Charles Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 483 (1962) law); Plywood 385 421, 87 (1967). aware, brief clear, AFL-CIO Curiae,, Courts uniform down Lueck. case, nonpre-emption preadventure, ____, fit occasion disagreements arisen decisions. note tend speak "pre-emption," defendants diverse situations reasons: plaintiff's derives (and, belongs arbitrator); instances, different, "resolved" term confer (perhaps negotiated right), Caterpillar 386, 398-399, 2425, 2432-2433, 318 (1987); still, concededly some application. Holding substantively extinguished observes, means vindicating arbitrator's primacy contract-interpreter. Collyer Insulated Wire, Western Systems 192 N.L.R.B. 837 (1971). equally obvious mean). concerns defeat Code, confines preclusive focus "dispute[s] "agreement arbitrate" Howard apparent font appear untrue teachings: there, "unpaid wage" higher wage; falls customary jurisdiction. Cal.App.3d, 836, Cal.Rptr., 411. Age Discrimination enforceable emphasized consistency Alexander Gardner-Denver 415 36, 94 1011, 39 147 (1974), permitting bring VII notwithstanding already grieved dismissal distinguished relying, inter alia, on: "distinctly separate rights" (even "violated result factual occurrence"), 50, 1020; "arbitrator authority rights," 53-54, 1022; concern subordinated unit." 58, 19, 1024, 19. avoids complications omitting 219. noted [has never] seen exclude unionized establishing standards. believe differently. Minimum affect discourage NLRA." 2397. Were encouraging "friendly adjustment industrial disputes," 151, "laudable," 291, 1063-1064, "deter[ring] reward[ing] 'fidelity law,' 1061. bears seem plausible laws, "burdening" nonrepresented "benefit" able "contract Addendum (collecting similar provisions). grounded vindicate "fundamentally different" stemming interest, 110, 450-451, prove relevant cognizability

Classification Label: 9