Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25

Citations: 51 L. Ed. 2d 338; 97 S. Ct. 1056; 430 U.S. 290; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 57; 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2759Docket: 75-804

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 7, 1977; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A tort action was brought by Joy A. Farmer, as Special Administrator of her deceased husband, against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its officials in California state court. The petitioner alleged that union officials engaged in outrageous conduct, leading to emotional distress and bodily injury, amid disagreements over union policies. Other claims included discrimination in employment referrals due to intra-union political activities and breaches of the collective-bargaining agreement concerning nondiscriminatory referrals.

The trial court allowed the emotional distress claim to proceed but sustained a demurrer on the discrimination and breach of contract claims, citing federal law preemption. The jury awarded damages, but the California Court of Appeal reversed this, asserting that the action was within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) due to its focus on employment relations.

The Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It reasoned that no NLRA provision protects the alleged outrageous conduct and that allowing state jurisdiction over such claims does not interfere with federally protected conduct. The Court emphasized the state's significant interest in protecting citizens from abusive conduct, which should be recognized even when concerning emotional distress.

However, the Court concluded that the trial's focus on employment discrimination rather than the alleged outrageous conduct failed to meet the necessary standards for assessing emotional distress claims. Consequently, the risk that the jury's verdict reflected damages for employment discrimination rather than for intentional infliction of emotional distress led to the decision not to reinstate the trial court's judgment.

The case involves Richard T. Hill, a carpenter and former vice president of Local 25 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, who sued the Union and its officials for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging discrimination in job referrals following internal disputes. Hill claimed he faced harassment and abuse due to his complaints about the Union's operations and sought $1 million in damages. The Superior Court dismissed his claims of discrimination and breach of contract, citing federal preemption under the National Labor Relations Act, but allowed the emotional distress claim to proceed to trial.

During the trial, Hill attempted to demonstrate that the Union's actions included public ridicule and job referral discrimination, while the defendants argued their hiring practices were nondiscriminatory. The court instructed the jury that Hill needed to prove the defendants' conduct was intentional and outrageous, causing him severe emotional distress, defined as a significant and enduring mental reaction. The court clarified that minor insults or annoyances did not meet the threshold for emotional distress. Additionally, it stated that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction to compensate for emotional distress, pain, suffering, or punitive damages.

The court denied a requested jury instruction that would prevent consideration of discrimination evidence related to employment opportunities. The jury awarded $7,500 in actual damages and $175,000 in punitive damages against the Union, the District Council, and Business Agent Daley, leading to a judgment by the trial court. The California Court of Appeal reversed this judgment, citing that the state courts lacked jurisdiction over the complaint as it primarily involved employment relations, which fall under the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the action, a decision that the California Supreme Court did not review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the pre-emption doctrine in labor law. The court elaborated on the pre-emption doctrine, highlighting the balance between federal authority under the National Labor Relations Act and the states’ rights to regulate local matters. It articulated that state jurisdiction must yield when activities are clearly protected under federal law, but also recognized exceptions for activities that are peripheral to labor relations or deeply rooted in local concerns.

In Machinists v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court addressed wrongful expulsion from union membership and its relation to the pre-emption doctrine under federal labor law. The Court established that pre-emption does not apply when a state law is structured such that judicial oversight aligns with federal labor interests. The case of Linn v. Plant Guard Workers is used to illustrate this principle, where the Court allowed a defamation suit to proceed despite the potential for pre-emption under the Garmon rule. Key factors included the nature of the conduct (intentional defamation not protected by federal law), a strong state interest in protecting individuals from malicious libel, and minimal risk of interfering with federal labor policy, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would not address defamation in its proceedings.

The Court emphasized that state actions could proceed without infringing on federal regulations, provided they adhered to specific standards, particularly in limiting claims to statements made with knowledge or reckless disregard of their falsity. Additionally, any claim for damages had to demonstrate actual injury, including harm to reputation and specific financial losses. The Court underscored the trial judge's role in ensuring that awarded damages remained reasonable and not excessive.

The excerpt addresses exceptions to the pre-emption rule concerning violent tortious activity in labor disputes, clarifying that federal labor statutes do not protect violence or threats of violence. It cites various cases, including *Automobile Workers v. Russell* and *United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp.*, to emphasize that state actions for damages related to violence do not impede rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are consistent with state interests in public safety. The excerpt notes that while state causes of action generally do not escape pre-emption due to their broad applicability, a nuanced inquiry into federal and state interests is necessary. It highlights that in the case of Hill, allegations of outrageous conduct causing emotional distress could form the basis for unfair labor practice charges, but a rigid application of the Garmon doctrine may not be warranted, particularly given the state’s substantial regulatory interest. Finally, it asserts that the NLRA does not protect the alleged outrageous conduct, allowing state jurisdiction over such claims without conflicting with federal law.

The State has a significant interest in protecting citizens from emotional distress caused by outrageous conduct, which is recognized as a valid tort despite being a recent development in state law. This interest is not diminished by the absence of physical injury or damage to reputation, as seen in prior cases. However, there is a potential conflict with federal jurisdiction, particularly regarding Hill's allegations of discrimination that could qualify as unfair labor practices under federal law. While these federal concerns exist, they do not outweigh the State's legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from emotional harm.

The state tort action for infliction of emotional distress does not require the resolution of the merits of any underlying labor dispute, such as discrimination by union officials. To succeed in a state tort claim, Hill must prove that the defendant engaged in outrageous conduct that caused him mental distress, independent of any claims of union discrimination. The state court can adjudicate this tort claim without interfering with federal labor regulations, as Congress did not intend to eliminate state jurisdiction over tortious actions. However, any claims based on union discrimination cannot be the basis for the state tort action, as doing so would violate the pre-emption principle established in federal labor law.

Emotional distress and anxiety from employment discrimination alone are insufficient for concurrent state-court jurisdiction. A state tort must either be unrelated to employment discrimination or arise from the manner in which the discrimination occurs, not from the discrimination itself. Furthermore, California law allows recovery for emotional distress only if it results from "outrageous" conduct, and state tort recoveries should not interfere with federal regulations, particularly in labor contexts where strong personalities and robust language are common. State trial courts must ensure damages awarded are not excessive. 

In the case at hand, while the complaint alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, the trial did not adhere to the required standards, focusing instead on discrimination rather than the intent of emotional distress. Consequently, the jury's verdict may have improperly awarded damages for employment discrimination rather than for intentional infliction of emotional distress, preventing the reinstatement of the Superior Court judgment. The Court of Appeal's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Additionally, the petitioner, Hill, had specific allegations against the Union regarding discrimination, which he did not appeal. The discussion on preemption distinguishes between federal protection of conduct and the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with the case's relevance primarily tied to the NLRB's jurisdiction. The Garmon doctrine's history is noted, emphasizing that not every final judicial pronouncement can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential conflict with federal labor policy.

The Court asserts its limitations in addressing certain jurisdictional issues, emphasizing the need for a straightforward rule that allows lower courts to self-regulate. Exceptions to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have been established both judicially and by Congress, notably in the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) of 1947. Section 303 of the LMRA permits individuals harmed by violations of § 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to seek damages in federal court, regardless of the Board's authority over the underlying unfair labor practices. Section 301 allows for lawsuits over breaches of collective-bargaining agreements, even if such breaches constitute unfair labor practices. Additionally, state courts can assert jurisdiction over labor disputes declined by the Board under § 14(c)(2) of the NLRA.

The case of Plumbers v. Borden illustrates the potential conflict between state and federal jurisdiction, where a union's hiring hall practices could be challenged in state court, undermining federal authority. This led to the preemption of the state cause of action under the Garmon doctrine, which was similarly applied in Iron Workers v. Perko. Conversely, Machinists v. Gonzales established an exception for state-law actions related to union membership expulsion, though it predates the Garmon preemption framework. The Lockridge decision clarified that while Gonzales' rationale was still valid in certain contexts, the overarching preemption rule established by Garmon would generally prevail. The Court notes that criticisms of Lockridge do not necessitate a reevaluation of its relationship with Gonzales in the current case.

Gonzales, following the analyses in Garmon and Lockridge, reveals a spectrum of potential conflicts between state and federal law. Lockridge emphasized a 'real and immediate' conflict, while Gonzales presented a conflict that was deemed 'tangential and remote.' Discrimination in hiring hall referrals is classified as an unfair labor practice under sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the NLRA, as illustrated by prior cases. Hill, before this litigation, filed a charge with the Board alleging the Union's refusal to refer him for a job constituted a violation of these sections, resulting in an award of $2,517 in backpay.

The determination of whether hiring hall practices are discriminatory is entrusted to the Board. Federal pre-emption concerning contractual breach allegations relies on the nature of the obligation and breach. Complaints framed as breach of a membership agreement do not guarantee exemption from pre-emption. However, breaches of collective-bargaining agreements fall under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, permitting lawsuits even if classified as unfair labor practices.

Given the potential for interference with federal regulations, trial courts must minimize jury exposure to evidence of employment discrimination. If such evidence is essential for context, juries should be instructed to limit their consideration to the context and not include employment discrimination in liability or damages assessments. The trial's focus was primarily on Union discrimination regarding employment opportunities rather than on emotional distress claims. Respondents acknowledge that the second cause of action relates to state tort law for emotional distress but argue that evidence predominantly addressed discriminatory hiring practices. The document refrains from commenting on whether non-pre-empted aspects meet state law standards for intolerable conduct.