Court Opinion

ID: 9390598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 21:00:39.055207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.640843
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912     Doc: 28           Filed: 04/26/2023   Pg: 1 of 16

                                              PUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1912

        DAWN C. POLK

                    Plaintiff - Appellant

        v.

        AMTRAK NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; ANDREW
        COLLINS, Amtrak D.ER; ALTON LAMONTAGNE, Roadforeman Manager;
        TRACEY ARMSTRONG, Trainmaster Manager

                    Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21−cv−01740−LKG)

        Argued: March 9, 2023                                           Decided: April 26, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee
        and Judge Heytens joined.

        ARGUED: Denise M. Clark, CLARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
        Appellant. Alison Nadine Davis, LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., Washington, D.C., for
        Appellees. ON BRIEF: Rosa T. Goodman, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Washington,
        D.C., for Appellees.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912       Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 16

        WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

               Congress enacted the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., to curb

        disruption of the rail yards, tracks, and terminals that tie our economy together. As relevant

        here, the statute directs workers and carriers to resolve their differences through mediation

        and arbitration. But Dawn Polk, a rail worker, elected to sue her employer, Amtrak, in

        federal court. The district court, however, held that Polk’s claims were subject to arbitration

        under the RLA. We agree and thus affirm the judgment.

                                                      I.

               Dawn Polk, an African American woman, worked as a conductor for Amtrak

        National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). During her employment, she belonged

        to a division of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) union,

        which maintained a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Amtrak.

               In late 2018, Polk suffered an injury that caused her to miss multiple months of

        work. Before returning to the job, Polk was required to take a drug test in accordance with

        Amtrak’s Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace Program (Drug-Free Program). The Program

        specifies that “[a]ny employee returning to work after an absence of at least 30 consecutive

        days . . . must pass a [d]rug test before returning to work.” J.A. 314.

               On March 25, 2019, an Amtrak representative called Polk and asked her to take the

        drug test that day. Polk promptly went to the testing site but was unable to produce an

        adequate sample of urine during an allotted three-hour period. She then called Andrew

        Collins, Amtrak’s director of employee relations, to ask to reattempt the test the following

        morning. According to Polk, Collins responded that “you don’t get a second test” and

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28          Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 16

        advised her to undergo a medical evaluation for shy bladder syndrome. J.A. 26. After

        Polk’s subsequent assessment for shy bladder syndrome came back negative, Amtrak

        terminated her employment pending an investigative hearing.

               A couple of weeks later, on April 19, Amtrak extended Polk a settlement offer via

        her union representative. Per the offer, which the parties refer to as “the Waiver,” Amtrak

        proposed to reinstate Polk so long as she agreed to several conditions including that she

        waive her right to the investigative hearing. The Waiver also obligated Polk to see a

        substance abuse professional, undergo “unannounced drug and/or alcohol follow-up testing

        at least six (6) times for a period of twelve (12) months,” and “waiv[e] all rights under the

        Collective Bargaining Agreement” in the event of a future violation of the Drug-Free

        Program. J.A. 55–56. Polk alleges that she signed the Waiver “under duress.” J.A. 28.

               Polk returned to work on May 8, six weeks after the initial drug test. She alleges

        that she received four drug tests over the following year, and then another seven tests in

        the year after that. As the tests continued into the second year following her reinstatement,

        Polk expressed concern to her union that Amtrak was testing her beyond the twelve-month

        period mentioned in the Waiver. Polk alleges that the added tests caused her embarrassment

        and interfered with her medical appointments.

               In early 2021, Polk collected her concerns into a formal grievance that she filed with

        Amtrak’s dispute resolution office. She alleges that she subsequently received a call from

        an Amtrak representative attributing the continued testing to a computer entry error. Polk

        further alleges that the representative “never called . . . back as promised” and failed to

        rectify the error. J.A. 32. Two months later, Polk retired from Amtrak on disability benefits.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912       Doc: 28          Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 4 of 16

               In July 2021, Polk brought the instant lawsuit pro se in the District of Maryland.

        She named Amtrak and Collins as defendants, along with three other Amtrak colleagues,

        Alton Lamontagne, Curtis Stencil, and Tracey Armstrong. Polk asserted state-law claims

        of breach of contract and tort, as well as a federal claim of racial discrimination in violation

        of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. She requested $1.5

        million in damages.

               Defendants moved to dismiss, and Polk in turn moved for summary judgment as

        well as for leave to amend her complaint. In June 2022, the district court granted

        defendants’ motion and denied Polk’s two motions. It reasoned that the Railway Labor Act

        preempted Polk’s state-law claims and precluded her federal Title VII claim because all of

        these claims would “require that the Court interpret the rights within the CBA” between

        Amtrak and SMART. J.A. 362.

               Polk timely appealed.

                                                      II.

               This appeal concerns the Railway Labor Act, which aims to “avoid any interruption

        to commerce” and “provide for the prompt and orderly settlement” of disputes between rail

        workers and carriers. 45 U.S.C. § 151a. In relevant part, the statute sets forth a detailed

        dispute-resolution procedure, culminating in arbitration, for conflicts “growing out

        of . . . the interpretation or application” of a collective bargaining agreement. Id. § 153

        (first). Such conflicts are known as “minor disputes.” Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris,

        512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994); see Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Executives’ Ass’n, 491

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912         Doc: 28      Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 5 of 16

        U.S. 299, 302 (1989) (“[M]ajor disputes seek to create contractual rights, minor disputes

        to enforce them.”).

               The Supreme Court has held that the RLA’s arbitral procedure for minor disputes is

        “mandatory.” Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 252. Thus, minor disputes that are not

        resolved through an intra-carrier grievance procedure are to be referred to arbitration. For

        the hearing of these matters, the RLA created the National Railroad Adjustment Board, a

        specialized tribunal consisting equally of union and carrier representatives. 45 U.S.C.

        § 153 (first). Carriers and unions may also institute their own adjustment boards instead

        with a single representative from each side. Id. § 153 (second). To secure the RLA’s

        arbitral procedure, the Supreme Court has ruled that the RLA preempts state-law claims

        that also constitute minor disputes. Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262–63.

                                                    III.

               On appeal, Polk solely challenges the district court’s holding that the RLA precludes

        her Title VII claim. At the dismissal stage, we review the district court’s decision de novo.

        AFSCME Md. Council 3 v. Maryland, 61 F.4th 143, 148 (4th Cir. 2023). Polk argues that

        the RLA does not preclude her Title VII claim because the claim is not a minor dispute.

        She advances two arguments. First, Polk maintains that Title VII claims are “never” minor

        disputes because Title VII supplies an “independent” cause of action. Appellant Opening

        Br. at 4. Second, and in the alternative, Polk contends that at least her particular claim is

        not a minor dispute because it does not require the “interpretation or application” of a CBA.

        45 U.S.C. § 153 (first). We address each of Polk’s contentions in turn.

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 6 of 16

                                                    A.

               Polk first argument is categorical. She contends that all Title VII claims are

        intrinsically different from RLA minor disputes because Title VII “rights are guaranteed

        to employees whether or not a collective bargaining agreement exists.” Appellant Opening

        Br. at 9. Polk’s proposition that a Title VII claim cannot be a minor dispute, however, runs

        headlong into Supreme Court guidance, circuit court precedent, and the congressional

        judgments behind the RLA. While Polk is entitled to seek a remedy for workplace

        discrimination, the RLA accords her the avenue for such relief in arbitration.

                                                     1.

               The Supreme Court has indicated that federal claims, such as those arising under

        Title VII, can constitute minor disputes. On multiple occasions, the Court has explained

        that state causes of action can be minor disputes even though they can arise in the absence

        of a CBA. Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 261–62; Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R.

        Co., 406 U.S. 320, 323–24 (1972). That Title VII is a federal statute makes no difference.

        For the Court has stated that the RLA’s preemption inquiry for state claims and its

        preclusion inquiry for federal claims are founded upon common “principles.” Hawaiian

        Airlines, 512 U.S. at 259 n.6. Whether in the preemption or preclusion context, “Congress

        considered it essential to keep [minor] disputes within the Adjustment Board and out of the

        courts.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562 n.9. (1987).

               Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we recently stated that a “federal claim”

        can double as a minor dispute—and thus be subject to RLA preclusion. Giles v. Nat’l R.R.

        Passenger Corp., 59 F.4th 696, 703 (4th Cir. 2023). Our sister circuits have largely agreed

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912       Doc: 28        Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 7 of 16

        when confronted with a smattering of nominally independent federal causes of action.

        E.g., Carmona v. Sw. Airlines Co., 536 F.3d 344, 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (Title VII); Brown v.

        Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 254 F.3d 654, 668 (7th Cir. 2001) (Americans with Disabilities

        Act); Schiltz v. Burlington N. R.R., 115 F.3d 1407, 1415 (8th Cir. 1997)

        (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). The lesson from these cases is not that a federal

        claim will always be a minor dispute, but that, contrary to Polk’s view, a federal claim can

        at times be one.

                 There is good reason not to carve out federal claims from the RLA’s preclusive

        scope. Congress understood minor disputes—that is, disagreements over the

        “interpretation or application” of a CBA—to be destabilizing in and of themselves.

        Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 252 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 151a). The adjudication of minor

        disputes can determine prevailing CBA interpretations and therefore “govern future

        relations” between unions and carriers. Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co., 339 U.S. 239,

        242 (1950). As a result, minor disputes have “long been considered a potent cause of

        friction leading to strikes.” Id. By getting courts out of the business of interpreting CBAs,

        Congress sought to avoid “protracted railway labor disputes” that would adversely affect

        the national economy. Fairbairn v. United Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir.

        2001).

                 The RLA’s rationale has little to do with whether a minor dispute arises from a

        contractual claim or some other cause of action under state or federal law. The end-result

        is the same: A minor dispute can be destabilizing because of its precedential implications

                                                     7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28          Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 8 of 16

        for a CBA. To mitigate that inherent risk, Congress opted for the centralized arbitration of

        minor disputes over their sporadic litigation all across the country.

               This congressional decision was premised on the several advantages that adjustment

        boards have over courts. First, their members are “peculiarly competent” in that they

        “understand railroad problems and speak the railroad jargon.” Slocum, 339 U.S. at 243–44.

        Second, centralization fosters “a desirable degree of uniformity” in CBA interpretations.

        Id. And third, the flexibility of arbitral procedure allows for greater delicacy and dispatch,

        reducing the likelihood of “strikes bringing railroads to a halt.” Nat’l Union Pac. R. Co. v.

        Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region,

        558 U.S. 67, 72 (2009).

               Congress is, of course, welcome to pare back the RLA’s “mandatory arbitral

        mechanism.” Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 252. But Title VII, the statute invoked by

        Polk, gives no indication that Congress meant to do that. The text of Title VII does not

        refer to, let alone repudiate, the RLA’s “elaborate administrative procedures” for minor

        disputes. Buell, 480 U.S. at 562. And the broad reach of Title VII cautions against

        displacing other statutory procedures that are focused on a narrow problem. Title VII

        governs almost any entity country-wide “engaged in an industry affecting commerce” so

        long as it has fifteen or more employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). In contrast, the RLA

        concerns itself with railroad companies and airlines. 45 U.S.C. § 151. As the “more specific

        statute,” the RLA is therefore to “be given precedence over a more general one.” Busic v.

        United States, 446 U.S. 398, 406 (1980).

                                                      8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912       Doc: 28          Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 9 of 16

               In sum, we decline to unwind a nearly century-old statutory scheme without a clear

        congressional directive to do so. The mere fact that Polk’s claim arises under Title VII does

        not disqualify that claim from being a minor dispute within the RLA’s ambit.

                                                       2.

               Polk protests that arbitration would render her Title VII rights “ineffective.”

        Appellant Opening Br. at 4. But arbitration is no death knell. In extending an arbitral forum,

        the RLA serves not to deny Polk due process but to afford it.

               Polk’s skepticism of arbitration is, in any event, out of step with the views of

        Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has discussed the benefits of

        arbitration in recent years within the context of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.

        § 1 et seq. Congress’s view, the Court explained, is that arbitration can offer “quicker,

        more informal, and often cheaper resolutions for everyone involved.” Epic Sys. Corp. v.

        Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018). In a string of recent cases, the Supreme Court has

        rejected state- and court-made exceptions to the FAA’s strong presumption of arbitrability.

        Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1924 (2022); Epic, 138 S. Ct. at

        1619; Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 239 (2013); AT&T Mobility LLC

        v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 352 (2011). Under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, there

        is no reason to fear that arbitration will not give “statutory antidiscrimination rights the full

        protection they are due.” Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 265 n.5 (2009).

               Polk appeals to Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), but the

        Supreme Court has substantially narrowed and explicitly repudiated that decision. See

        Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 35 (1991); Penn Plaza, 556 U.S.

                                                       9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28           Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 10 of 16

        at 265. The value of arbitration does not vanish simply because Polk raises a workplace

        discrimination claim. Polk’s argument about the inefficacy of arbitration is but a riptide to

        the Supreme Court’s admonition that “the advantages of the arbitration process [do not]

        somehow disappear when transferred to the employment context.” Circuit City Stores, Inc.

        v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123 (2001).

               While arbitration does not compromise Title VII protections, Polk’s proposed rule

        would scuttle the RLA’s continued operation. Any dispute about a disciplinary action can

        be reframed through artful pleading as a discrimination claim under Title VII. Thus, if

        Title VII claims are never minor disputes, workers will be able to “cavalierly bypass” the

        regular grievance process and arbitration and head straight to federal court merely by

        adding allegations of discrimination to a complaint. Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t,

        868 F.2d 1364, 1367 (4th Cir. 1989). This maneuver would not be difficult. But it would

        turn courts into adjudicators of first instance, whereas the RLA permits them to reverse

        adjustment board decisions only for lack of jurisdiction, failure to comply with RLA

        requirements, or taint of fraud or corruption. 45 U.S.C. § 153 (first). By blessing Polk’s

        new strategy of artful bypass, we would be nullifying the RLA’s emphatic preference for

        the arbitration of minor disputes.

               The less disruptive alternative is for claims like Polk’s to go to arbitration. Polk has

        already taken the first step by filing a grievance with Amtrak’s dispute resolution office.

        She can ultimately make her case to an adjustment board, half composed of union

        representatives. 45 U.S.C. § 153. In addition, Amtrak has represented that Polk can raise

        her Title VII claim and obtain Title VII relief in the arbitral forum. Oral Arg. at 19:43.

                                                      10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 11 of 16

               Preclusion of a Title VII suit need not be the end of the story. Employees can still

        hold their carrier accountable for discriminatory conduct. The RLA charts the path to do

        so through arbitration.

                                                     B.

               That Title VII claims can be RLA minor disputes does not end our analysis, since

        Polk also argues that at least her particular claim is not a minor dispute. As noted above,

        minor disputes “grow[] out of . . . the interpretation or application” of a CBA. Hawaiian

        Airlines, 512 U.S. at 252 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 151a). Polk contends that her claim is not a

        minor dispute because the claim is limited to “Amtrak’s discriminatory behavior and not

        the collective bargaining agreement itself.” Appellant Opening Br. at 4.

               We disagree. The thrust of Polk’s Title VII claim is that Amtrak deviated from its

        policies when dealing with her. While Polk’s allegations as to her own treatment are

        factual, those concerning Amtrak’s policies directly implicate the relevant CBA between

        Polk’s union, SMART, and Amtrak. That some of Polk’s interpretive disagreements

        concern the Drug-Free Program does not alter the character of her claim because the

        Program is itself integrated with the CBA. Since Polk’s Title VII claim requires the

        interpretation of a CBA, it is a minor dispute.

                                                     1.

               The dispositive role of the CBA is illuminated by the substance of Polk’s Title VII

        claim. A worker may prove a claim of racial discrimination under Title VII either through

        “direct” or “circumstantial” evidence. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,

        460 U.S. 711, 714 n.3 (1983). Polk does not refer to her race or the race of her colleagues

                                                     11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912       Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 12 of 16

        in her complaint, apart from a conclusory statement that she was “discriminated against

        due to [her] race.” J.A. 14. Her allegations of racial discrimination are “circumstantial.”

        Aikens, 460 U.S. at 714 n.3.

               To make out a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination in the absence of “direct

        evidence,” Polk must show “(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job

        performance; (3) adverse employment action; and (4) different treatment from similarly

        situated employees outside the protected class.” Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d

        187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010). As Polk herself appreciates, her claim thus necessitates a showing

        that she was “treated differently” than other Amtrak employees on account of her race.

        Appellant Opening Br. at 3. The concept of differential treatment, after all, implies a

        difference.

               The problem for Polk is that evaluating her theory of differential treatment would

        require a court to interpret CBA provisions covering employee discipline and

        reinstatement. That is, Polk relies on her interpretation of these provisions as a stand-in for

        allegations about Amtrak’s factual treatment of her similarly situated colleagues. She

        chiefly alleges that Amtrak broke its own rules when it (1) terminated her for failing to

        complete the initial drug test, and then (2) tested her “excessively” beyond the one-year

        period specified in the Waiver. J.A. 15, 25. Yet even assuming arguendo that these

        allegations could establish the element of differential treatment in a Title VII claim, they

        would still necessitate the “interpretation or application” of a CBA. Hawaiian Airlines,

        512 U.S. at 252 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 151a). Polk’s claim is accordingly a minor dispute.

                                                      12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 13 of 16

               To begin, Polk contends that Amtrak’s “policy” was to give workers who failed to

        complete a drug test a second chance, not to terminate them. J.A. 25. To determine whether

        Polk is correct, a court would need to examine the CBA because the Drug-Free Program

        explicitly delegates discipline for union employees to the “appropriate collective

        bargaining agreement.” J.A. 320. In particular, Rule 25 of the CBA governs disciplinary

        measures. That provision spells out when and how Amtrak may discipline SMART

        members. It also describes what kind of offense would warrant taking an employee “out of

        service pending a trial and decision,” as Polk was. J.A. 292. A court would have to construe

        Rule 25 to decide whether Amtrak strayed from its “policy” in disciplining Polk.

               Polk maintains that Rule 25 does not cover her mere failure to complete a drug test.

        But her disagreement over the rule’s proper “interpretation or application” is precisely the

        kind of minor dispute that the RLA reserves for adjustment boards. Hawaiian Airlines,

        512 U.S. at 252 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 151a). Absent examination of the CBA, it is

        impossible to say whether Amtrak’s decision to terminate Polk was standard or an

        aberration.

               Polk’s second concern, related to the frequency of her drug tests, likewise hinges on

        the CBA. Her objection primarily concerns the seven drug tests she received after the

        twelve-month period mentioned in the Waiver. Polk’s position is that other employees in

        her position were not tested so frequently under Amtrak’s policy, and that she has therefore

        shown differential treatment.

               But Polk was not a regular Amtrak employee for drug testing purposes during the

        relevant time period. She had already been terminated and reinstated for a Drug-Free

                                                    13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28        Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 14 of 16

        Program violation, which she admitted to as part of the Waiver. J.A. 55. For some

        employees, only the Drug-Free Program might have been relevant to determining Amtrak’s

        policy for testing frequency. But for those in Polk’s situation, the corresponding policy

        implicates not only the Program but also the CBA provisions that govern employee

        reinstatement.

              Two CBA provisions, in particular, are critical to interpreting Amtrak’s policy.

        Namely the “Rule G Bypass Agreement” and the “Prevention Program Companion

        Agreement” set forth reinstatement conditions for a worker following a drug violation.

        These provisions provide for “testing . . . for up to two years” and a “probationary basis

        for . . . two years” with “periodic alcohol and/or drug tests.” J.A. 298, 300 (emphasis

        added). These two-year provisions could entirely account for Amtrak’s allegedly excessive

        testing of Polk, which took place in the two years after her reinstatement. Whether these

        provisions applied to Polk and how they are to be reconciled with the one-year period

        mentioned in the Waiver are questions of CBA “interpretation or application” that

        constitute an RLA minor dispute. Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 252 (quoting 45 U.S.C.

        § 151a).

                                                    2.

              Polk tries to distance her interpretative assumptions from the CBA by isolating them

        within the Drug-Free Program. But, as an initial matter, the Drug-Free Program cannot be

        so cleanly removed from the CBA. To do so would divorce Polk’s violation from Amtrak’s

        remedy. Yet Polk’s “refusal to test” under the Program would mean little detached from

        Amtrak’s disciplinary action that resulted from it. Likewise, an understanding of the

                                                   14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/26/2023      Pg: 15 of 16

        Program’s random testing policy would be incomplete without consideration of the CBA’s

        reinstatement provisions that explicitly refer to drug testing. That clear lines between the

        CBA and Program are difficult to draw is typified by the Waiver, which led to Polk’s

        reinstatement. Although Polk depicts the Waiver as a private agreement between her and

        Amtrak, it referenced the CBA and was addressed to and signed by Polk’s union

        representative.

               The separation Polk seeks further overlooks the fact that the CBA incorporates the

        Drug-Free Program. CBAs are not limited to their express terms. For a CBA is “not an

        ordinary contract,” but a “generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the

        draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate.” Consol. Rail, 491 U.S. at 311–12 (internal quotation

        marks omitted). A CBA therefore incorporates any “practice, usage and custom” which has

        been “acquiesced in by the [u]nion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fry v.

        Airline Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 88 F.3d 831, 836 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that CBAs may

        “implicate practices, procedures, implied authority, or codes of conduct that are part of the

        working relationship”).

               The Drug-Free Program encompasses an ensemble of practices and customs that

        became de facto working conditions for SMART members such as Polk. The latest version

        of the Program had been in effect since June 2017—almost two years before Polk’s initial

        test. Its policies were no secret. In Polk’s words, the Program was carried out with respect

        to “all Amtrak employees, contractors, volunteers, and applicants who have received a

        conditional offer of employment.” Appellant Opening Br. at 11. Amtrak’s actions would

                                                     15
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1912      Doc: 28          Filed: 04/26/2023     Pg: 16 of 16

        almost inescapably be measured by its fidelity to or departure from the CBA and Drug-

        Free Program.

               Polk provides no basis to believe that her union was unaware of or hostile to the

        Program’s years-old policies. If anything, the fact that the CBA and Drug-Free Program

        cross-reference each other suggests that SMART knew of the Program and had negotiated

        suitable accommodations for its members.

               This conclusion comports with the rationale for collective bargaining. A CBA

        “covers the whole employment relationship,” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co.,

        363 U.S. 574, 579 (1960), and for good reason. Workers support unions in the hopes of

        obtaining firm rights and protections. Unions and carriers devote substantial time and

        energy to negotiating comprehensive, amenable accords. The resulting CBAs are not meant

        to be brittle arrangements that labor or management can sidestep on a whim. The whole

        point is for CBA procedures to be put to workplace use. That really is all this case is about.

                                                     IV.

               Based on the terms of the CBA, “the gravamen” of Polk’s Title VII claim is that

        Amtrak “violated the CBA or improperly applied it.” Giles, 59 F.4th at 703. She has

        therefore raised a minor dispute. To prevent minor disputes from becoming major ones, we

        hold that Polk’s Title VII claim is subject to arbitration under the RLA. Polk does not

        challenge the other parts of the district court’s holding on appeal, and we see no reason to

        disturb them. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                     16