United States Supreme Court

BNSF RAILWAY CO. v. TYRRELL

“The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., makes railroads liable in money damages to their employees for on-the-job injuries. Respondent Robert Nelson, a North Dakota resident, brought a FELA suit against petitioner BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) in a Montana state court, alleging that he had sustained injuries while working for BNSF. Respondent Kelli Tyrrell, appointed in South Dakota as the administrator of her husband Brent Tyrrell’s estate, also sued BNSF under FELA in a Montana state court, alleging that Brent had developed a fatal cancer from his exposure to carcinogenic chemicals while working for BNSF. Neither worker was injured in Montana. Neither incorporated nor headquartered there, BNSF maintains less than 5% of its work force and about 6% of its total track mileage in the State. Contending that it is not “at home” in Montana, as required for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ––––, ––––, 134 S.Ct. 746, 769, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 BNSF moved to dismiss both suits. Its motion was granted in Nelson’s case and denied in Tyrrell’s. After consolidating the two cases, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over BNSF because the railroad both “d[id] business” in the State within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. § 56 and was “found within” the State within the compass of Mont. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(b)(1). The due process limits articulated in Daimler, the court added, did not control because Daimler did not involve a FELA claim or a railroad defendant.”

Held:

[1] FELA does not authorize state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over a railroad solely on the ground that the railroad does some business in their States, and

[2] Montana could not, consistent with due process, exercise general jurisdiction over railroad.

Reversed and remanded.

Andrew S. Tulumello, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Julie A. Murray, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Andrew S. Tulumello, Michael R. Huston, Sean J. Cooksey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Fredric A. Bremseth, Bremseth Law Firm, P.C., Minnetonka, MN, Robert S. Fain, Jr., Billings, MT, Julie A. Murray, Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
USSC 5/30/17 opinion by Ginsberg, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch concurring, Sotomayor concurring in part and dissenting in part; ___ S.Ct. ___, 2017 WL 2322834, 41 IER Cases 1809.

Read All Decisions

Mariko Yoshihara

June 2^nd marked the deadline for the legislature to pass all bills out of their house of origin. As a result, over the past couple weeks, dozens of bills have stalled, and many were significantly amended in order to garner the support needed to advance. Notably, nearly all anti-worker bills that CELA opposed this year have died, including several measures aimed to weaken the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Below is a list of the top 12 pro-worker bills that CELA is tracking and working on that have now advanced to the second house for review. Bills marked with an asterisk have been or will be amended based on opposition concerns. For a complete list of bills we are tracking visit: www.cela.org/legislation or email: mariko@cela.org.

1. Parental Leave – Under current state and federal family leave laws, only employees at companies with 50 or more employees are eligible for job-protected parental leave. SB 63 (Jackson) would expand the right to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave for employees at companies with 20-49 employees.
2. Pay Equity – AB 46 (Cooper) would clarify that the California Equal Pay Act applies to public employees.
3. Pay Data Transparency* – AB 1209 (Gonzalez Fletcher) would require very large employers to submit data on gender wage differentials to the State.
4. Prior Salary – AB 168 (Eggman) will prohibit employers from asking applicants about salary history information and would require employers to provide applicants with a pay scale for the position.
5. Emergency Medical Workers Meal and Rest Breaks – AB 263 (Rodriguez) would codify certain provisions of Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) and other existing laws to require that during rest or meal periods, employers must relieve the employee of all duties and shall not require that the employee remain “on call,” except that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period for an emergency, as defined, and pay the employee one additional hour of pay and provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable.
6. Immigrant Worker Protection Act* – AB 450 (Chiu) would require employers to take certain actions to ensure worker rights remain protected at the workplace during immigration enforcement actions. Specifically, the bill prohibits an employer from providing access to the worksite or access to confidential employee records without a judicial warrant or subpoena; requires employers to provide a notification of a worksite enforcement action to the Labor Commissioner; and prohibits employers, except as required by federal law, from checking the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code and without first notifying the Labor Commissioner.
7. Reproductive Health Rights* – AB 569 (Gonzalez Fletcher) will prohibit employers, including religiously affiliated institutions, from discriminating against employees based on his or her reproductive health care decisions or from requiring an employee to sign a code of conduct or similar document that purports to deny an employee the right to make his or her own reproductive health care decision.
8. Fair Chance Act* – AB 1008 (McCarty) would make it an unlawful employment practice under FEHA for an employer to seek the disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history on any application for employment or to inquire into or consider the conviction history of an applicant until that applicant has received a conditional offer.
9. Overtime Protections – AB 1565 (Thurmond) would raise the overtime exemption for an executive, administrative, or professional employee to a monthly salary equivalent of $3,956 or an amount no less than twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment, whichever amount is higher.
10. Joint Employer Liability – AB 1701 (Thurmond) would make a direct contractor making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other work, jointly liable for any debt owed to a wage claimant incurred by a subcontractor and would allow property of the direct contractor to be attached for the payment of any judgment.
11. Service Members Employment Protections – AB 1701 (Committee on Veterans Affairs) would conform state law to the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) by protecting service members from hostile work environments in their civilian jobs.
12. Retaliation – SB 306 (Hertzberg) would allow the Labor Commissioner to seek an immediate and temporary injunction when workers face retaliation for reporting violations of the law and to issue citations and penalties to enforce retaliation claims.

Read Full Article