State Law Claims for Wrongful Discharge Preempted by DBA

By Francis Waguespack

In Sickle v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, Civil No. 11-cv-2224 (Feb. 24 2014), the D.C. district court addressed preemption under the Defense of Base Act (DBA).

While working as a contractor in Iraq, Matthew Elliot injured his back while moving sandbags. The

on-base medic, David Sickle, examined Elliot and issued a report recommending further treatment in the United States. Elliot applied and received coverage for temporary total disability under the DBA.

Before Elliot returned to work, Torres terminated his employment through email without advanced written notice. Additionally, after Torres failed to convince Sickle to withdraw his medical evaluation of Elliot, Torres fired Sickle as well.

Plaintiffs claimed retaliatory discharge under the DBA as

well as common law claims including: breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and common law retaliatory discharge.

The two issues before the court were: 1) Whether plaintiffs could bring a DBA claim in federal court prior to exhausting all administrative remedies before the Department of Labor, and

2.) Whether the DBA or LHWCA preempts plaintiffs’ common law claims arising from the same circumstances that prompted plaintiffs' retaliatory discharge claim under the DBA?

Regarding the first issue, the court cited the well established doctrine “that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” The court concluded that the plaintiffs had to pursue their claims before the Department of Labor before coming to federal court. Because the DOL already provides an administrative procedure for retaliatory discharge under the DBA, allowing the claim to proceed in federal court before exhausting those administrative remedies would cause an unneeded intrusion into the agency process.

Addressing the second issue, the court determined that the DBA preempted plaintiffs’ common law claims. First, the language of the statute expressly preempted common law claims that are connected to any form of retaliatory discharge under the DBA. Further, the breadth of the statutory framework under the DBA and LHWCA show Congress’s intent that federal law supplant any common law action for similarly situated plaintiffs.

Finally, the court found that allowing plaintiffs’ common law claims to proceed in federal court would undermine the DBA and LHWCA goal of providing immunity for employers against state tort causes of action for work-related injuries.

Therefore, only where a federal statutory remedy is unavailable can an employee who is normally protected under the DBA or LHWCA pursue state law claims against his or her employer for work a related injury.