BlogLine

Eighth Circuit holding on LMRA preemption of state law employment discrimination claims: It substantially depends

11/5/25

By: Nicholas S. Franos

In King v. UPS, decided on September 25, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s race and age discrimination claims, as well as his hostile work environment allegations. The case underscores that when employer-employee relations are governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), federal law, specifically the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), may preempt state law claims.

What Happened in King

Brandon King was hired by UPS as a delivery driver, scheduled to work Tuesdays through Saturdays. Believing he would not have to work weekends, Mr. King took various steps to avoid Saturday shifts. UPS disciplined him for these repeated efforts. King alleged that younger, white employees similarly avoided Saturday shifts but were not disciplined.

He filed suit in Iowa state court under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. UPS removed the case to federal court, arguing that the LMRA completely preempted King’s claims. The district court agreed, denied King’s motion to remand and granted UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after King declined to pursue the matter under the LMRA.

The Eighth Circuit’s Ruling

Federal question jurisdiction typically follows the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires a federal issue to appear on the face of the complaint. However, under the doctrine of complete preemption, certain federal statutes, like Section 301 of the LMRA, can wholly displace state law claims if those claims are based on or substantially dependent on a CBA.

The Eighth Circuit held that King’s claims were completely preempted because resolving them required interpreting specific provisions of the CBA. For example, the agreement distinguished between full-time package car drivers and 22.4 combination drivers regarding weekend work protections. Determining whether King was treated differently due to race or age, or whether UPS’s discipline was excessive, necessitated analyzing the CBA.

Because King refused to litigate under the LMRA framework, the court affirmed the dismissal.

What This Means for Employers

For employers operating under a CBA, King offers a measure of predictability. If a plaintiff’s claims “substantially depend on” the agreement’s terms, a threshold the court suggests is not particularly high, those claims may be subject to federal jurisdiction and LMRA preemption. This can be advantageous for employers, as federal law may offer a more balanced framework compared to potentially broader protections under state civil rights statutes.

For more information, please contact Nicholas S. Franos at nicholas.franos@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.