JOAN V. HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. PAUL HIRSH, RESPONDENT.
86 N.Y.2d 207, 654 N.E.2d 975, 630 N.Y.S.2d 701
July 5, 1995
1 No. 287 SSM 26 (1995 NY Int. 175)
Decided July 5, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Daniel F. McCarthy, for Appellant.
Submitted by Charles S. Sims, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
On this appeal, we hold that the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) (45 USC
151 et seq.) mandatory arbitration provisions for "minor disputes"
arising from a collective bargaining agreement do not preempt
plaintiff's state law defamation action. We previo usly determined
that the Appellate Division properly dismissed the defamation action
as preempted (see, Harris v Hirsh, 83 NY2d 734 (Harris I)).
However, the United States Supreme Court granted plaintiff's petition
for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment in Harris I, and
remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its
subsequent decision in Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v Norris (512 US __,
114 S Ct 2239 (1994)). Applying the rule and rationale of Hawaiian
Airlines on reargument, we now reverse the Appellate Division order
dismissing plaintiff's complaint on preemption grounds, and remit to
that court for a consideration of the arguments it failed to address
due to its prior disposition.
Plaintiff Joan Harris was employed by Metro North Commuter Railroad as
a crew dispatcher and was a member of a union covered by a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) with Metro North. On July 16, 1986,
plaintiff's supervisor, defendant Paul Hirsh, called plaintiff into
his office to discuss her work performance. Plaintiff alleges that
during that meeting, and in the presence of her two immediate
supervisors, defendant asked plaintiff whether she had a problem, and
then stated: "You take drugs. I've worked in the Towers, and I know a
person who is on drugs and you look like one. I've been thinking about
sending you for a drug test."
Plaintiff first sought an "unjust treatment" hearing pursuant to Rule
52 of the CBA. She then commenced this slander action in State court.
SNIPPETS:
we hold that the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) mandatory arbitration provisions for "minor
We previo usly determined that the Appellate Division properly dismissed the defamation
Applying the rule and rationale of Hawaiian Airlines on reargument, we now reverse the
Plaintiff Joan Harris was employed by Metro North Commuter Railroad as a crew dispatcher and
On July 16, 1986, plaintiff's supervisor, defendant Paul Hirsh, called plaintiff into his
Plaintiff alleges that during that meeting, and in the presence of her two immediate
Defendant asserted the affirmative defenses that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss on the jurisdictional p oint.
We concluded that "a State defamation action -- which typically will n ot be expressly
The Supreme Court subsequently decided Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v Norris supra), which holds
Under that test, a state-law cause of action is preempted if it depends upon an
Citing its recent decision in Livadas v Aubry ), the Supreme Court made clear in Hawaiian
the rule derived from Hawaiian Airlines and Livadas is that a state tort action may not go
That is true because interpretation of contract terms is a role exclusively reserved to the
Moreover, resolution of plaintiff's defamation action involves "purely factual inquiries"
|
