## Facts

- Jonna R. Lingle was employed by Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. and was covered by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Lingle was injured at work and sought medical-expense benefits under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Norge discharged Lingle, asserting she filed a false workers’ compensation claim.
- The CBA prohibited discharge absent “just cause” and provided for grievance and arbitration procedures regarding disputes over the agreement’s effect or interpretation.
- The union filed a grievance challenging the discharge under the CBA.
- While arbitration was pending, Lingle filed an Illinois tort action alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation rights.

## Issues

1. Whether LMRA § 301 preempts a state-law retaliatory-discharge claim brought by an employee covered by a CBA containing a “just cause” provision.
2. Whether adjudicating the Illinois retaliatory-discharge tort requires interpretation of the CBA, triggering § 301 preemption.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment that dismissed the complaint.
- The Court held that § 301 preempts state-law claims only when their resolution requires interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.
- The Court held the Illinois retaliatory-discharge claim could be resolved without interpreting any CBA term and therefore was not preempted.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the state-law claim.

## Legal Principles

- A state-law claim is preempted by LMRA § 301 only if resolving the claim depends on the meaning of a collective-bargaining agreement.
- State rights and duties that exist independently of a CBA are not displaced merely because the same facts could also support a contractual grievance.
- For Illinois retaliatory discharge based on filing a workers’ compensation claim, the elements focus on discharge (or threat) and employer motive to deter or interfere with statutory rights; these elements do not require construing the CBA.
- The presence of a “just cause” clause does not, by itself, convert an independent state tort into a claim requiring CBA interpretation.
- Federal labor policy favoring arbitration does not require preempting independent state-law causes of action that do not turn on CBA meaning.

## Conclusion

LMRA § 301 did not preempt Lingle’s Illinois retaliatory-discharge tort claim because the claim’s elements could be decided under state law without interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement, even though the discharge was also subject to grievance and arbitration under the CBA.


Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988)