Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-8059.
May 5, 2003.
MEMORANDUM
In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") argues that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because they are inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, are precluded by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"). Generally, the RLA requires that an employee arbitrate before the National Railroad Adjustment Board ("NRAB") any claim against his employer arising under a collective bargaining agreement.
All of the terms and conditions of Ellis's employment with Defendant Amtrak are governed by a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") between Defendant Amtrak and Defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, Local 18 (the "Union"). Despite this, the Court cannot determine, at this stage of the proceedings, whether Plaintiff's claims are inextricably intertwined with the collective bargaining agreement. Though Plaintiff refers to the Seniority System in the CBA, Plaintiff's claims may not be grounded in a dispute over the meaning of the seniority provisions of the CBA. Rather, Plaintiff's allegations may pertain to Defendants' motives in their failure to recall Plaintiff and their failure to post open positions. See, e.g. Stokes v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 99 F. Supp.2d 966, 971 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (finding that subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims is proper and stating that "[i]n assessing whether Norfolk Southern violated Mr. Stokes's rights under Title VII and § 1981, the court will not address an interpretation or application of seniority rights under the CBA, but instead will decide, factually, Norfolk Southern's motives in denying Mr. Stokes his seniority and bumping rights.").
As the record develops, however, it may become apparent that Plaintiff's claims truly are inextricably intertwined with the CBA. If this is true, the Court may grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the RLA. See, e.g. Caldwell v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 3:96CV443-P, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6171, at *13-14 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 1998) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because the RLA provides the exclusive means for resolving the dispute and stating that "[p]laintiff's Title VII claim cannot be decided wholly apart from the Collective Bargaining Agreement, does not present purely factual issues which do not require interpretation and application of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and involves a `minor dispute' as defined by the Act.").
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2003, upon consideration of Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 3), Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 4), and Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Reply thereto (Docket No. 5), and Defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen's Motion for Stay (Docket No. 7) and Plaintiff's Response (Docket No. 9), it is ORDERED that Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and that Defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen's Motion for Stay is DENIED.