Supreme Court of the United States
Livadas v. Bradshaw, California Labor Commissioner
June 13, 1994512 U.S. 107
Summary
The Court unanimously held that federal labor law pre-empts the California Labor Commissioner's policy of refusing to enforce statutory wage-payment claims for employees covered by collective-bargaining agreements containing arbitration clauses. The policy impermissibly burdened employees' federally protected collective-bargaining rights. Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act did not pre-empt Livadas's underlying penalty claim because it arose from independent state-law rights and required only consultation of an undisputed contractual wage rate. The Court further held that Livadas could seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment. There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- Federal pre-emption of the Commissioner's nonenforcement policy.. The NLRA pre-empts the policy of refusing to enforce otherwise applicable statutory wage-payment protections merely because an employee is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause.
- Section 301 pre-emption of Livadas's penalty claim.. Section 301 does not pre-empt Livadas's state-law late-payment penalty claim merely because calculating damages requires consulting the collective-bargaining agreement's undisputed wage rate.
- Availability of relief under § 1983.. Livadas may bring her claim under § 1983 to remedy the Commissioner's abridgment of her NLRA rights.
Docket 92-1920
Cited authorities
- Rule 35.3
- Code Section 229
- Code Section 203
- 26 U.S.C. §3301
- 29 U.S.C. §151
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 49 Stat. 452
Cited by
- Marlen A. Beltran Zamora v. Overhill Farms, Inc.
- Patrice Lavern Alexander v. Bio-Pacific, LLC
- Christian Botello v. Darling Ingredients Inc.
- Maria Cabrera v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group
- (PS) RuBang v. Brooks
- (PS) Beaton v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
- (PS) Liang v. Anderson
- (PS) Conerly v. Kaiser Permanente