Swanson v. 1 Hotel SF, L.L.C.

Background

Sara Swanson sued her employer, TR Mission Management LLC, in San Francisco County Superior Court. She alleged seven causes of action under California law, including disability discrimination and harassment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability.

Swanson worked as a hotel restaurant server and was a member of a union governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). She alleged that, after moving from the restaurant to the banquet department, she had “frozen seniority” that allowed her to displace less-senior employees from restaurant shifts. In September 2023, the company provided her an accommodation allowing her to work in the restaurant’s smallest indoor section when she used that seniority. In February 2024, a new manager revoked the accommodation. The company later told her that she could no longer use her restaurant seniority to displace a less-senior restaurant server unless she had been laid off for at least 30 days.

Swanson alleged that the company’s interpretation of the CBA was incorrect and that changing the interpretation was a pretext for denying her accommodation and violating disability-protection laws. She contacted her union representative, and the dispute over the CBA’s interpretation went to mediation. The opinion states that the parties’ papers did not say what happened at the mediation.

Removal and Motion to Remand

TR Mission removed the case from state court based on federal preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Federal preemption can make a state-law claim count as a federal claim when resolving it necessarily requires interpreting a collective bargaining agreement. Swanson moved to remand, asking the court to return the case to state court.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that, at a minimum, Swanson’s retaliation claim required interpretation of the CBA and was therefore preempted under Section 301. Swanson alleged that, after she complained about the revocation of her accommodation, TR Mission reinterpreted a CBA provision in a way that prevented her from working in the restaurant. She also alleged that the company’s interpretation conflicted with its prior practices, the union’s interpretation, and the interpretations used by other union hotels in San Francisco.

The court reasoned that deciding the retaliation claim would require determining, among other things, whose interpretation of the CBA was correct. Because at least that claim was preempted, the court held that removal to federal court was proper. The court expressly stated that it did not need to determine at that time which other causes of action were preempted.

Disposition

The court held that TR Mission’s removal was proper and denied Swanson’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide the underlying disability claims or state whether the other causes of action were preempted.