Retaliatory Discharge Claim not Preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act

A manufacturing employee's finger was partially amputated while using a "kicking method" of removing metal from bundles. He claimed medical and temporary total disability benefits under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. The employer considered the "kicking method" to be an unsafe work practice and when the employee returned to work, suspended him for three days. The employee's union filed a grievance on his behalf. The employee received additional safety training upon his return from the suspension, and shortly thereafter was again accused of violating a safety rule. The employer informed the union that the employee would be fired. The union advised the employee to ask that his discharge be characterized as a "permanent layoff with no recall rights" so that he would be eligible for unemployment insurance and a neutral job reference. The employer agreed as long as the employee dismissed the earlier filed grievance.

The employee later sued in Illinois state court claiming that the settlement was a sham and that he was fired for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employer removed the retaliatory discharge suit to federal court, under the theory that the employee's lawsuit was really a claim under the parties' collective bargaining agreement that was preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The district court found in favor of the employee and the employer appealed.

Upon review, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the resolution of the retaliatory discharge claim rested on a factual dispute which did not require the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and remanded the case back to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Employers should be mindful that the circumstances surrounding an employee's separation, and not necessarily how the employer characterizes the departure, will be considered in determining whether the employee was in fact discharged.

For more information read Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., No. 13-1054 (7^th Cir., August 7, 2013).