State Discrimination Claims Not Preempted by Labor Management Relations Act.

Lorraine Detabali, a 57-year-old Filipina woman, sued her employer in state court for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).? ?Her employer removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. ? 1441(b) on the grounds that the claims were preempted by ? 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).?? The trial court dismissed, holding that Plaintiff?s claims were preempted and that the Plaintiff had failed to exhaust the LMRA grievance procedures. ?The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded to state court. ?It explained: ?Section 301 of the LMRA preempts a state-law claim ?if resolution of [that] claim depends upon the meaning of a collective- bargaining agreement? (CBA) but ?Causes of action that only tangentially involv[e] a provision of the collective-bargaining agreement are not preempted by section 301.?? Nor are causes of action which assert nonnegotiable state-law rights.? ?(citations omitted). ?The court found that determining whether Detabali was legitimately terminated for refusing to work outside of her cluster?? in?? violation?? of?? the?? FEHA?? requires referring to the CBA but ?there is no dispute over the meaning of any terms within the agreement? so ?resolution of the central issue?whether St. Luke?s discriminated against Detabali in applying the agreement?does not depend interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.? ?Detabali v. St. Luke?s Hospital, 482 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2007)