Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
- Decided
- June 9, 1987
- Docket
- 86-526
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,547 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “the fact that ARCO’s complaint ma[de] repeated references to” federal law was insufficient to confer jurisdiction — Dennis Ex Rel. PICO Holdings, Inc. v. Hart (2013)
- holding that ordinarily a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense unless the "complete preemption doctrine" applies — Matthew Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Incorporated, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae (2004)
- holding that union members’ suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable — Angel Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Associates (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*388] Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether respondents’ state-law complaint for breach of individual employment contracts is completely pre-empted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, and therefore removable to Federal District Court. h-i At various times between 1956 and 1968, Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar) hired respondents to work at its San Leandro, California, facility. Complaint ¶¶ 10-26, App. to Pet. for Cert. (App.) A-40 — A-42. Initially, each respondent filled a position covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between Caterpillar and Local Lodge No. 284, International Association of Machinists (Union). Each eventually became either a managerial or a weekly salaried employee, positions outside the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement. Respondents held the latter positions for periods ranging from 3 to 15 years; all but two respondents served 8 years or more. App. A-97 — A-98.
Respondents allege that, “[djuring the course of [their] employment, as management or weekly salaried employees,” Caterpillar made oral and written representations that “they could look forward to indefinite and lasting employment with the corporation and that they could count on the corporation to take care of them.” Complaint 1ffl27A, 27D, App. A-43. [*389] More specifically, respondents claim that, “while serving Caterpillar as managers or weekly salaried employees, [they] were assured that if the San Leandro facility of Caterpillar ever closed, Caterpillar would provide employment opportunities for [them] at other facilities of Caterpillar, its subsidiaries, divisions, or related companies.”
Statutes cited
Cite this
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.