Rather than file a grievance through the Union, the plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging claims for (1) breach of contract because she was fired without just cause; and (2) violation of the the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”) because her termination was cause by her use of workers’ compensation.  At trial, the jury ruled against the plaintiff on the REDA claim, but found in her favor on the contract claims and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court vacated the verdict because the contract claims were legally barred.  “When an employee’s claim is firmly rooted in a breach of a collective bargaining agreement and asserts no rights independent of that agreement, such claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).”  (The RLA governs unions in the airline industry.)  In other words, when an employee wants to challenge her termination as unlawful under a CBA, she usually must pursue the matter through the CBA’s grievance mechanism instead of in court.  As this plaintiff did that, the breach of contract claims were legally barred, and the verdict had to be vacated.

In this case, the plaintiff had been injured at work, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was receiving benefits.  Disputes arose regarding her benefits and her ability to work, which led to the REDA claim.  Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant retaliated against her by (1) refusing to allow her to be treated by her preferred neurosurgeon, Dr. Mark Roy, and (2) refusing to allow her to return to work in a light duty position when she could not physically perform her original position.

The Court held that neither action could constitute “retaliation” under REDA.  The first was purely a dispute about workers’ compensation benefits, was not connected to terms of employment, and thus had to be handled as a workers’ compensation issue in the Industrial Commission.  The second was not retaliation because, unlike the Americans with Disabilities Act, REDA does not impose an obligation on employers to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations.  If an employee cannot physically perform her job, REDA does not bar their separation.

Lee v. Wignat Road, LLC is a cautionary case.  The Court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiff-appellants failed to serve the notice of appeal on all the parties, specifically the non-appealling plaintiffs and some of the defendants.  The Court found the error deserved dismissal because it impaired the Court’s ability to hear from all parties, and because the appeal seemed to lack merit in any event.