Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 8 (1994)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

114

LIVADAS v. BRADSHAW

Opinion of the Court

penalty on the exercise of her statutory right to bargain collectively with her employer. She stressed that there was no dispute about the amount owed and that neither she nor Safeway had begun any grievance proceeding over the penalty.8 Livadas sought a declaration that the Commissioner's interpretation of 229 was pre-empted, an injunction against adherence to the allegedly impermissible policy, and an order requiring the Commissioner either to process her penalty claim or (if it would be time barred under state law) pay her damages in the amount the Commissioner would have obtained if the Commissioner had moved against the employer in time.

The District Court granted summary judgment for Livadas, holding the labor pre-emption claim cognizable under 1983, see Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103 (1989) (Golden State II), and the Commissioner's policy pre-empted as interfering with her 7 right, see, e. g., Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 475 U. S. 608 (1986) (Golden State I), by denying her the benefit of a minimum labor standard, namely, the right to timely payment of final wages secured by Labor Code 201 and 203. 749 F. Supp. 1526 (ND Cal. 1990). The District Court treated as irrelevant the Commissioner's assertion that the policy was consistent with state law (e. g., Labor Code 229) and rejected the defense that it was required by federal law, namely, 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. 185(a), which has been read to pre-empt state-court resolution of disputes turning on the rights of parties under collective-bargaining agree-8 Livadas did file a grievance claiming that the discharge had been improper under the collective-bargaining agreement, ultimately obtaining reinstatement with backpay. While the parties dispute what effect, as a matter of state law, that recovery would have on Livadas's right under 203, neither the pertinent California statutes nor the Commissioner's policy at issue here depend on whether a claimant's termination was for just cause.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007