## Facts

- Frank Hagan worked for Feld Entertainment as a lion handler and was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- During a July 2004 train trip transporting lions through extreme heat, Hagan alleged Feld prevented him from stopping to provide water and adequate care.
- Hagan alleged the conditions violated federal animal-transport regulations requiring protection from excessive heat and periodic checks.
- Hagan claimed a lion died from heat exposure and lack of water.
- Hagan alleged management told him to remove the body and not discuss the incident; he refused and reported the incident and alleged regulatory violations to management.
- Feld fired Hagan, stating he caused a power outage; Hagan alleged the stated reason was pretext and that he was terminated in retaliation for refusing to conceal the incident and reporting violations.
- Hagan sued in Virginia state court for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of California public policy and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Feld removed to federal court, asserting LMRA § 301 complete preemption based on the CBA; Hagan moved to remand, and Feld moved to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether LMRA § 301 completely preempted the state-law wrongful-discharge claim because adjudication would require interpreting the CBA.
2. Whether LMRA § 301 completely preempted the IIED claim.
3. Whether the complaint stated a viable wrongful-discharge claim under California public-policy doctrine based on reporting animal-welfare violations and refusing to participate in concealment.
4. Whether California workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the IIED claim.

## Decision

- The court held the wrongful-discharge claim was not § 301 preempted because it turned on Feld’s motives and public-policy considerations, not interpretation of the CBA.
- The court held the allegations were sufficient to plead a prima facie California public-policy wrongful-discharge claim predicated on animal-welfare enforcement and refusal to participate in concealment of unlawful conduct.
- The court dismissed the IIED claim as barred by California workers’ compensation exclusivity, finding no applicable exception on the pleaded facts.
- With only a non-preempted state-law claim remaining and no independent federal basis for jurisdiction, the court remanded the case to state court.

## Legal Principles

- LMRA § 301 preempts a state-law claim only when resolving the claim substantially depends on interpreting a collective bargaining agreement; claims turning on factual questions of conduct and motive are not preempted merely because a CBA exists.
- A California public-policy wrongful-discharge claim may rest on statutory or regulatory policies, including termination for reporting violations and refusing to participate in concealment, even if the statute provides no express whistleblower remedy.
- Under California law, workers’ compensation generally provides the exclusive remedy for work-related emotional distress; tort recovery for IIED requires an applicable exception and conduct outside the normal risks of the employment relationship.
- If removal rests on § 301 complete preemption and the remaining claim is not preempted, federal subject-matter jurisdiction fails and remand is required.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Hagan’s IIED claim as barred by California workers’ compensation exclusivity, held his California public-policy wrongful-discharge claim was not LMRA § 301 preempted and was adequately pleaded, and remanded the remaining claim to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.


Hagan v. Feld Ent. Inc., 365 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2005)