Court Opinion

ID: 9472393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:58:50.823917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:54.618108
License: Public Domain

FAGG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The national labor policy considerations which underlie the cases cited by the court do not support the result it has reached. I do not believe that federal labor law gives GM license fraudulently to injure an employee with impunity from the control of state tort law.
Almost four weeks after Moore accepted GM’s offer of employment, GM falsely represented the date when she was to start work, a starting date known by it to be false. In reliance upon GM’s representation Moore sold one home at a sacrifice and lost her down payment on another. GM’s conduct is not free from the application of state law. States have a deeply rooted interest in protecting their citizens from fraudulent conduct and, unlike the federal scheme, state remedies have been designed to compensate for the kind of economic loss suffered by Moore.
I would hold GM answerable under state tort law. An action brought understate law by an employee to redress loss caused by the employer’s false representation will not interfere with the effective administration of the national labor policy. The doctrine of preemption is not applicable here. I would, reverse.