Jordan v. Verizon New England, Inc. , 180 F. App'x 183 ( 2006 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter --
Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 05-2204
JEFFREY JORDAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC. AND
VERIZON SERVICES CORP.,
Defendants, Appellees.
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Before
Howard, Circuit Judge,
Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
Penny S. Dean for appellant.
Arthur G. Telegen with whom Laura Bernardo and Foley Hoag LLP
were on brief for appellees.
May 11, 2006
Per curiam. After review of the briefs, record, and relevant
case law, we have concluded that the district court properly
dismissed appellants’ claims for the reasons articulated in its
Order of July 5, 2005. In very brief summary, we note that, as an
employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”),
appellant has no cause of action for wrongful discharge under New
Hampshire law. See Censullo v. Brenka Video, Inc., 989 F.2d 40, 42
(1st Cir. 1993). Moreover, any such claim, as well as any related
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, would
require review of appellant’s contractual rights under the CBA and
thus would be preempted. See Flibotte v. Penn. Truck Lines, Inc.,
131 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 1997).
Although some state law claims may be brought by employees
covered by collective bargaining agreements, see Lingle v. Norge
Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 409 n.8, 413 (1988); Allis-
Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 211-13 (1985), that
opportunity is of no aid to appellant. His asserted causes of
action do not implicate specific, independent state law
protections, such as against retaliation for filing a worker’s
compensation claim. See, e.g., Lingle, 486 U.S. at 406-10.
Although his complaint makes passing reference to defamation and
other possible state law claims, he neither alleged nor argued such
causes of action in the district court; we consequently have no
-2-
occasion to consider whether they would be sufficiently distinct to
avoid preemption.
Finally, the alleged constitutional violations are, to quote
the district court, “curious claims, given the fact that his former
employer is a private, rather than governmental, entity.”
Affirmed.
-3-