Williams v. BHI Energy I Power Services LLC

Background

Marilyn Williams brought an employment-discrimination action against BHI Energy I Power Services LLC under Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act. The opinion states that Williams worked for BHI as a payroll specialist, was randomly selected for a drug test, failed the test, and was fired that same day. Williams alleged that BHI did not give her the written notice and opportunity to explain or challenge the positive result required by the statute. She also alleged that BHI violated the statute by terminating her based on the initial positive test without giving her an opportunity to participate in drug counseling or rehabilitation.

In an earlier summary-judgment order, the court granted Williams partial summary judgment, finding BHI liable for violating subdivisions 6, 10(a), and 10(b) of Minnesota Statute § 181.953. The court denied BHI’s summary-judgment motion, rejecting BHI’s argument that the Atomic Energy Act and related federal regulations preempted Williams’s state-law claims. The opinion states that only a damages trial remained.

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

BHI moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify three questions for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The questions concerned whether federal fitness-for-duty regulations apply to contractors of nuclear licensees, whether federal regulations occupy the field and therefore displace the Minnesota law, and whether federal law conflicts with the Minnesota law in these circumstances.

Section 1292(b) requires a party seeking an interlocutory appeal to show three things: the order presents a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court stated that interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored and that the party seeking certification bears a heavy burden.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that BHI failed to satisfy all three requirements. First, although the preemption issues appeared legal on their face, the court had relied on the factual record when deciding them. The court had examined the relationship between Xcel Energy, a nuclear licensee, and BHI, a contractor; compared Xcel’s drug-testing procedures with BHI’s procedures; and considered what occurred in Williams’s case. Because the earlier ruling involved applying legal principles to those facts, the court found that BHI had not shown that the proposed questions were purely legal questions suitable for interlocutory review.

Second, the court found no substantial ground for difference of opinion. It stated that BHI identified no part of the court’s decision that conflicted with existing authority and cited no authority that the court had disregarded or misunderstood. The court explained that a complex case, close legal analysis, or a limited number of decisions does not by itself establish the required disagreement.

Third, the court found that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation. The court noted that a motion to dismiss, discovery, and summary judgment had already been completed and that only a damages trial remained. Because little work was left, the court found minimal efficiency in pausing the case for an appeal before a damages finding and entry of judgment.

Disposition

The court denied Defendant BHI Energy I Power Services LLC’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal, ECF No. 145. This order decided only whether to certify the three proposed questions for mid-case appellate review; it did not alter the earlier summary-judgment rulings described in the opinion.