Legal Document

496 U.S. 72 110 S.Ct. 2270 L.Ed.2d 65 Vera M. ENGLISH, Petitionerv.GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. No. 89-152. Argued April 25, 1990. Decided June 4, Syllabus Petitioner English, a laboratory technician at nuclear facility operated by respondent General Electric Company (GE), complained to GE's management and the Federal Government about several perceived violations of nuclear-safety standards facility, including failure her co-workers clean up radioactive spills in laboratory. Frustrated address concerns, English on one occasion deliberately failed work table contaminated with uranium during an earlier shift. Instead, she outlined areas red tape make them conspicuous and, few days later, called supervisor's attention fact that marked-off still had not been cleaned. Shortly after was halted for inspection cleaning laboratory, GE charged knowing contamination, temporarily assigned other work, ultimately discharged her. She then filed complaint Secretary Labor, alleging actions violated § 210(a) Energy Reorganization Act 1974, which makes it unlawful industry employer retaliate against employee reporting safety violations. Although Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found violation, dismissed as untimely under 30-day limitations period provided 210(b)(1). Subsequently, diversity action seeking compensatory punitive damages from District Court, raising, inter alia, state-law claim intentional infliction emotional distress. While rejecting argument latter fell within field—nuclear safety—that completely pre-empted Government, court nevertheless ground conflicted three particular aspects 210 therefore pre-empted. The Court Appeals affirmed. Held: English's distress is federal law. Pp. 78-90. (a) barred field pre-emption theory. After reviewing relevant statutory provisions legislative history, Pacific Gas & Co. v. State Resources Conservation Development Comm'n, 461 190, 103 1713, 75 752, concluded "the has occupied entire con cerns," id., 212, S.Ct., 1726, expressed view Congress intended only "Government should regulate radiological involved construction operation plant," 205, 1722. action, however, does fall boundaries so defined, since state tort law issue motivated see 213, 1727, claim's actual effect decisions made those who build run facilities sufficiently direct substantial, cf. Silkwood Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 238, 104 615, 78 443. It thus surprising there no evidence necessary "clear manifest" intent pre-empt such claims. 80-86. (b) conflict 210. First, neither text nor history 210(g)—which provides "Subsection this section [the prohibition retaliation] shall apply" where "deliberately causes violation any requirement or Atomic Act"—reflects congressional desire preclude all relief, remedies, whistle-blower commits violation. Even if were Congress' intent, interest would be served pre-empting recovery violators standards. Here, ALJ did commit Second, absent some specific suggestion provide general authorization award imply bar like English's, permits award. Third, expeditious timeframes processing claims do reflect decision that, order encourage retaliatory behavior, whistleblower able recover time filing expired. Since many incidents are response complaints already aware these even employees invoke 210's remedial provisions. Moreover, will forgo their options rely solely remedies simply too speculative basis rest finding. 87-90. 871 F.2d 22 (CA 1989), reversed remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Travis Payne, Raleigh, N.C., petitioner. Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., United States, amicus curiae, supporting petitioner, special leave Carter G. Phillips, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN 1 In context case we must decide whether pre-empts cause suit brought nuclear-fuels production arises out allegedly taken retaliation employee's complaints. 2 * employed 1972 1984 (GE) Wilmington, N.C. February 1984, petitioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) material 3 company's solution preceding conspicuous. A areas, As result, while inspected 4 episode, contamination work. On 30, informed laid off unless, 90 days, successfully bid position area exposed materials. May 15, notified final affirming disciplinary find another July employment terminated.1 5 August, Labor charging violating added, 92 Stat. 2951, 42 U.S.C. 5851(a) (1982 ed.), 6 "discharge otherwise discriminate respect his compensation, terms, conditions, privileges because . 7 "(1) commenced, caused commence commenced proceeding 1954, amended, administration enforcement imposed amended; 8 "(2) testified testify or; 9 "(3) assisted participated assist participate manner carry purposes amended."2 10 charge, alleged constituted discrimination NRC. An whom matter referred when transferred Secretary, filed, required 210(b)(1), 30 15 notice decision.3 11 March 1987, States Eastern North Carolina. four counts raised two claims, wrongful discharge distress.4 With latter, suffering severe depression harm result "extreme outrageous conduct." App. 20. addition transferring firing her, (1) removed guard "as criminal," 14; (2) degrading "make work" substitute assignment, ibid.; (3) derided paranoid; (4) working controlled areas; (5) placed constant surveillance hours; (6) isolated co-workers, lunch periods; (7) conspired charge fraudulently criminal laws. Id., 14-17. sought well damages. 12 stated valid Carolina law, nonetheless granted motion dismiss. 683 F.Supp. 1006, 1017-1018 (1988). accept petitioner's safety, according GE, Government. held, 210: provision bars Act,] Act," 210(g); absence generally authorizing exemplary damages; requiring invoking statute file administrative occurs, resolve its filing. See 210(b)(1) (b)(2)(A). court's view, enacted scheme foreclose whistle-blowers themselves violate requirements, limit awards industry, guarantee speedy resolution allegations violations—goals incompatible broader 13 Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal Court's reasoning. 22, 23 (1989). That pursuing belief "correctly identified applied law." 23. Because apparent First Circuit, Norris Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 881 1144 (1989), certiorari. 493 1055, 862, 107 946 (1990). II A. 14 sole question our Our cases have established Supremacy Clause, Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, circumstances. can define explicitly extent enactments Shaw Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 85, 95-98, 2890, 2898-2900, 77 490 (1983). Pre-emption fundamentally Schneidewind ANR Pipeline 485 293, 299, 108 1145, 1150, 99 316 (1988), known through explicit language, courts' task easy one. regulates conduct occupy exclusively. Such may inferred "scheme regulation pervasive reasonable inference left room supplement it," "touch[es] dominant system assumed laws same subject." Rice Santa Fe Elevator 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947). hesitated draw supported regulatory schemes, emphasized: "Where said pre-empted" includes "been traditionally States," supersede " 'clear manifest.' Jones Rath Packing 430 519, 525, 97 1305, 1309, 51 604 (1977), quoting U.S., 1152. 16 Finally, actually conflicts Thus, impossible private party comply both see, e.g., Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Inc. Paul, 373 132, 142-143, 83 1210, 1217-1218, 248 (1963), "stands obstacle accomplishment execution full objectives Congress." Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67, 61 399, 404, 85 581 (1941). also Maryland Louisiana, 451 725, 747, 101 2114, 2129, 68 576 (1981).5 17 undisputed inserting pre-emptive language into governing industry. apparently rationale either, but rather what they considered tension between goals reflected seeks defend judgment lower alternative located reserved regulation—the safety. Before turning courts based decisions, question. B 18 This first consider 752 (1983), carefully analyzed relating California conditioned powerplant agency's approval plant's nuclear-waste storage disposal field. need repeat analysis here, summarize briefly discussion realm conclusions drew actions. 19 Until use, control, ownership technology remained monopoly. 919, 2011 et seq. stemmed national encouraged sector develop atomic energy peaceful program licensing. implemented policy opening door construction, ownership, commercial nuclear-power reactors strict supervision (AEC). Duke Power Environmental Study Group, 438 59, 63, 98 2620, 2625, 57 595 (1978). AEC given exclusive authority license transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession, use observed Vermont Yankee Corp. Natural Defense Council, 435 550, 1197, 1215, 55 460 (1978): "The [Federal Government's] prime concern licensing [was] security, public health, safety." matters, significant role contemplated States. 20 1959, amended "clarify respective responsibilities Government] byproduct, source, materials," 2021(a)(1) increase States' role. 1959 amendments authorized AEC, agreements governors, discontinue Government's over certain materials specified conditions. programs adopted amendment "coordinated compatible" AEC. 2021(g). 21 passed Act, 88 1233, §§ 5801 abolished 5841(f). 1974 expanded number range NRC's charge. Gas, NRC purport exercise upon economic considerations, concerned primarily health 207, 1724. 1978, Act. Pub.L. 95-601, 2947. Among 210, 5851 which, discussed above, encourages report mechanism protecting doing so. except limited powers expressly ceded States." 1726. determined field, clear plant." present dispute, disagree falls Gas. Respondent maintains "nuclear safety" large one, integral part it. Specifically, contends better promote whistleblowers pursue remedy, whole marked Accordingly, argues covered exclusively 24 part, contend nonsafety rationales lie They argue rationale—namely, State's "substantial citizens kind abuse [petitioner] complain[s]," Farmer Carpenters, 290, 302, 1056, 1064, 338 (1977)—petitioner's allowed go forward. 25 We think arguments somewhat wide mark. respondent's contention, Congress, enacting available persons who, allege hands employer. Indeed, acceptance require us conclude displaced case, occurring site For example, hiring thugs assault job (conduct literally 210), prohibiting cannot believe result. essentially correct observing obviously bears relation "paramount" purpose protection employees.6 F.Supp., 1013. contention arising necessarily included Nor, position, reading based. true holding premised, conclusion ban concerns. majority suggested "state moratorium grounded concerns squarely prohibited field." 1727. words, defined reference motivation behind approach defining support provided, among things, "[n]othing construed affect local agency activities than radiation hazards." 2021(k) ed.) (emphasis added). But suggest finding place contrary, took great pains matters directly affecting nuclear-plant operation, "even [infringe upon] authority." question, law's 26 here former portion relevant.7 real issue, then, related "radiological [facility]," 1723, addressing bear mind every remote way doubt, instance, application minimum wage child labor pre-empted, though could tangentially resource allocation might bearing zone, substantial operate concerning levels. recognize liability attach additional consequences employers. employers more costly, forced deal means, altering policies. Nevertheless, enough 27 strongly 443 (1984). held escape plutonium federally licensed reached notwithstanding "tension [radiological] [including damages] own liability" unsafe 256, 625. suggesting intend include radiation-based injuries, 251-256, 623-626, odd, irrational, stemming damage suffered Potential potential raises, attaches themselves, merely related, prospect injuries undoubtedly employers' primary power far substantially asserts. petitioner's. Cf. Goodyear Miller, 486 174, 186, 1704, 1712, 100 158 (1988) (increased workers' compensation injury Government-owned "incidental pressure" finds acceptable). safety.8 C 28 now turn whether, concluded, face, grant remedy type discrimination—retaliation whistle-blowing. Ordinarily, mere existence scheme, detailed itself remedies. observed: "Undoubtedly, subject merits legislation is, definition, concern. mean, ousts look features warranting pre-emption." Hillsborough County Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 707, 719, 105 2371, 2378, 714 (1985). "special features" believed claim. 29 relied 210(g), Act." According respondent, reflects 210(g). Permitting whistle-blowing retaliation, reasoned, frustrate objective. agree. initial matter, note 210(g) specifically limits applicability Nor reveal supplant afford relief. explanation statute's Committee Report's statement requirements denied "[i]n avoid afforded section." S.Rep. 95-848, p. (1978) added), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 7303-04. event, concluding wanted violations, violators. 1144, 1150 (CA1 1989). instant committed meaning Pet. Cert. 44a, otherwise. barring serve gleaned section. 31 engage conduct. argues, implies petitioner's, put it, "an [by Congress] circumstances whistler blower receive fired discriminated complaints." 1014. read much authorize most incorrect stating "in circumstances" 210(d) authorizes district proceedings Secretary. importantly, follow teaching "[o]rdinarily, impose above ARC America 93, 105, 109 1661, 1667, 86 Absent unable find, permit 32 time-frames agrees, run, less incentive bring complaint. runs, agencies remain unaware behavior ensure facilities. deny force argument, problem suggests. 33 many, most, come register agencies. invokes Also, sure seems retaliation. pre-emption. repeatedly ordinarily implied "actual conflict." See, Savage Jones, 225 501, 533, 715, 56 1182 (1912). "teaching enjoin[s] none clearly exists." Huron Portland Cement Detroit, 362 440, 446, 80 813, 817, 852 (1960). III 34 prior cases. aspect contrary reversed, remanded further consistent opinion. 35 ordered. Although, technically, layoff status retained benefits recall rights point, practical longer date. If believes he statute, occurs. investigate hold hearing, receiving complaint, either denies 210(b)(2)(A). found, reinstatement backpay, damages, violator pay costs attorney's fees. 210(b)(2)(B). Any person adversely affected obtain judicial review appropriate appeals, complainant seek Secretary's court. 210(c) (e). consideration separate subjected continuing course harassment decision. Whitfield, 858 957 Upon remand, claim, also, barred. ALJ's recommended pending before ruled discharge. appealed ruling, wrongful-discharge us. By referring categories, mean rigidly distinct. understood species pre-emption: (either express plainly implied) exclude regulation. previously adverted three-category framework, apply here. regard, implementation entrusted body responsible regulation—but Department Labor. Two Justices thought reason discuss either. 223-224, 1732-1733. Whether definition today because, relevant, broad lacks merit. relies, Brief 45-49, construing National Relations (NLRA), 151 seq., regard reliance misplaced. To begin with, NLRA, unlike statutes nuclear-employment comprehensively deals labor-management relations inception organizational activity negotiation collective-bargaining agreement. factors warranted—specifically, perception NLRA needed legislatures coherent policy. Motor Coach Employees Lockridge, 403 274, 286, 1909, 1917, 473 (1971).

Classification Label: 9