Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment on Preemption and Other Grounds, [Doc. No. 66], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 2/7/13. (KXS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Case No. 4:10CV1505 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Cottrell, Inc.'s Supplement to
Motion for Summary Judgment on Preemption and Other Grounds, [Doc. No. 66].
Plaintiff opposes the Motion; Defendant has filed a reply. Defendant filed many
supplements to this reply, and Plaintiff has responded accordingly.
Factual Background 1
At the time of his injury, Plaintiff was a Teamster car hauler for Allied
Systems, Ltd.. Plaintiff worked pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
with his employer. Plaintiff voted to ratify the most recent CBA. Cottrell is not a
signatory to the CBA. Plaintiff's employer Allied, who is a signatory to the CBA,
is not a party to this action.
Since 1973, the CBA has had a Joint Health and Safety Committee
These facts are taken from Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, and Plaintiff's Response
to Defendant’s Statement of Facts Pertaining to Its Motion for Summary Judgment.
provision, with the purpose to consult on “matters involving highway and
equipment safety.” According to Article 30 of the CBA, the Joint Health and
Safety Committee was to review safety considerations relating to “proper steps,
handholds, catwalks,” etc, and furthermore, “safety considerations relating to
feasibility of handrails and cables on headrack ramps, swing decks and upper
decks of tractors and trailers.” The Committee was to report its recommendations
to the National Joint Arbitration Committee by January 2004. This report was
never actually made.
The CBA did not require or approve fall protection systems, nor did it
prohibit their use. During the time that the CBA was in effect, both Plaintiff and
other drivers at his terminal used trailers with fall protection systems. Defendant
offered fall protection to its users in 2009 even though there was no change to the
After a fall from a Cottrell rig on September 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed this
action against Defendant in August of 2010, alleging strict product liability and
Arguments of the Parties
The question of LMRA preemption has been extensively briefed, and both
parties offer many arguments. Their essential claims are as follows:
Defendant contends that the parties to a CBA, under the freedom of contract
fundamental to labor policy, can agree to the standard of care for determining
whether a product “used on the CBA job” is reasonably safe for their use.
Defendant declares that, accordingly, CBA interpretation is required to discern
this standard of care, thus requiring LMRA preemption. Defendant also contends
that its own defenses require CBA interpretation. Furthermore, Defendant
contends that CBA party status is unnecessary for preemption to apply.
Plaintiff responds that his claims are not founded on rights created by the
CBA, as both parties clearly have rights and obligations stemming from
negligence and products liability law. Plaintiff further argues that the CBA did
not prevent Defendant from designing reasonably safe rigs, which neither
prohibited nor required fall protection in the first place, and cites the lack of
evidence that Defendant ever consulted the CBA. Similarly, Plaintiff points out
that his employer had taken advantage of Defendant's offer to retrofit rigs with fall
protection systems while the CBA was in effect, showing its irrelevance to
Defendant's manufacturing decisions. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant
cannot benefit from LMRA preemption when Cottrell is not a party to the CBA.
Summary Judgment Standard
The standard for summary judgment is well settled. In determining whether
summary judgment should issue, the Court must view the facts and inferences
from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Woods v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.2005); Littrell v. City of
Kansas City, Mo., 459 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir .2006). The moving party has the
burden to establish both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986); Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir.1996). Once
the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the
allegations in his pleadings but by affidavit or other evidence must set forth
specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(e); Anderson 477 U.S. at 256; Littrell, 459 F.3d at 921. “The party opposing
summary judgment may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings; it must ‘set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ “ United of
Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Honea, 458 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); “ ‘Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.’ “ Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Hitt v.
Harsco Corp., 356 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.2004). An issue of fact is genuine when
“a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the question.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Woods, 409 F.3d at 990.
To survive a motion for summary judgment, the “nonmoving party must
‘substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit
a finding in [his] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or
fantasy.’ “ Wilson v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 62 F.3d 237, 241 (8th Cir.1995)
(quotations omitted). Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733–34 (8th
Cir.2003). A party may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations,
but must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would
permit a finding in the plaintiff's favor. Wilson v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 62 F.3d
237, 241 (8th Cir.1995). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support
of the [party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the
jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 at 252;
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir.2005). Summary judgment
is proper if a plaintiff fails to establish any element of the prima facie case. Nesser
v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Weber v.
American Express Co., 994 F.2d 513, 515–16). “Mere allegations, unsupported by
specific facts or evidence beyond the nonmoving party's own conclusions, are
insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.” Thomas v. Corwin, 483
F.3d 516, 526–27 (8th Cir.2007). Summary judgment will be granted when,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
giving the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Samuels v. Kan. City Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 F.3d 797, 801 (8th
Here, Defendant requests summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff's
claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act.
Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act applies to “[s]uits for
violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization,” 29 U.S.C. §
185(a); in other words, suits for violations of collective bargaining agreements
(“CBAs”). Williams v. Nat'l Football League, 582 F.3d 863, 873 (8th Cir. 2009).
The Supreme Court has held that section 301 preempts state law claims that are
substantially dependent on an analysis of a CBA. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck,
471 U.S. 202, 220, (1985), Williams, 582 F.3d at 874. Otherwise, the application
of state law could lead to inconsistent results, “since there could be as many state-6-
law principals as there are States.” Williams, 582 F.3d at 874, quoting Lingle v.
Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 406 (1988). Rather, “federal laborlaw principles – necessarily uniform throughout the nation – must be employed to
resolve the dispute.” Williams, 582 F.3d at 874, quoting Lingle, 486 U.S. at 406.
However, the preemption power of section 301 is necessarily limited. “Not
every dispute concerning employment, or tangentially involving a provision of a
collective-bargaining agreement, is pre-empted by § 301.” Lueck, 471 U.S. at 211.
Nor does section 301 preempt state law claims merely because the parties involved
are subject to a CBA, and the events underlying the claim occurred on the job.
Williams, 582 F.3d at 874.“[E]ven if dispute resolution pursuant to a collectivebargaining agreement, on the one hand, and state law, on the other, would require
addressing precisely the same set of facts, as long as the state-law claim can be
resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the
agreement for [LMRA] pre-emption purposes.” Bogan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 500
F.3d 828, 832 (8th Cir. 2007), quoting Lingle, 486 U.S. at 409-10.
In determining whether section 301 preemption applies to a claim, courts in
the Eighth Circuit start with the claim itself, applying a two-step approach to
determine whether it is sufficiently “independent” of the CBA to survive
preemption. Williams, 582 F.3d at 874, citing Bogan, 500 F.3d at 832. Ffirst, a
“state-law claim is preempted if it is ‘based on’ [a] ... provision of the CBA,”
meaning that the “CBA provision at issue” actually sets forth the right upon which
the claim is based. Id. Second, section 301 preemption applies where a state-law
claim “is ‘dependent upon an analysis' of the relevant CBA,” meaning that the
plaintiff's state-law claim requires interpretation of a provision of the CBA. Id.
“An otherwise independent claim will not be preempted by the LMRA if the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) need only be consulted during its
adjudication.” Williams, 582 F.3d at 876, quoting Trustees of the Twin City
Bricklayers Fringe Benefit Funds v. Superior Waterproofing, Inc., 450 F.3d 324,
330 (8th Cir.2006).
Defendant argues that it need not be a party to a CBA in order to invoke
LMRA preemption, citing Stringer v. Nat’l Football League, a Southern District
of Ohio case which held that non-signatories to a CBA can invoke 301 preemption
as a defense to state law claims. Stringer, 474 F.Supp.2d 894, at 901-02.
Defendant cites no Eighth Circuit case addressing the rights of non-parties to
invoke 301 preemption. However, to the extent that the Stringer case is persuasive
authority, its holding regarding defenses is of no avail in this circuit. Here, despite
some conflicting precedent2, the Eighth Circuit has followed a “narrower
approach,” holding that defenses to liability “are not relevant to [a] section 301
analysis”; only the plaintiff's claim may provide a basis for preemption. Williams,
582 F.3d at 879, Bogan, 500 F.3d at 833, Meyer v. Schnucks Markets, Inc., 163
F.3d 1048, 1051 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Cottrell's defenses are not relevant
to the Court’s analysis, and it cannot use them as a means to overcome its status as
nonparty to the CBA.
Further, the adjudication of Plaintiff's claims does not require interpretation
of the CBA between Plaintiff's union and his employer. Plaintiff's claims turn
upon Defendant's state-law duty to provide reasonably safe products; the mere
mention of fall protection
in the CBA is irrelevant to Defendant's fulfillment of
that duty. It is not based on any provision of the CBA, but upon state law. As to
Defendant's argument that the parties to the CBA set a special standard of care,
whether or not this argument has merit, the “CBA standard” is irrelevant to
whether a non-party to the CBA violated his state-law standard of care. A claim is
not preempted merely if it “relates in some way to a provision of the collectivebargaining agreement, or more generally the parties to such an agreement.” Lueck,
471 U.S. at 220. Here, the relation to any provision of the collective bargaining is
For a discussion of the evolution of this rule, and the reasoning behind the 8 th Circuit's 2007 holding that it
is the correct interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, see Williams, 582 F.3d at 879, n.13.
tentative at best, and the relation to one of the parties is entirely lacking. The
adjudication of Plaintiff's claims does not require interpretation of the CBA.
As such, this Court denies Cottrell's motion for summary judgment on
LMRA preemption grounds.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Supplement to Motion for
Summary Judgment on Preemption and Other Grounds, [Doc. No. 66], is denied.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2013.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 10 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?