# Evans v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

> California Court of Appeal · September 15, 1989 · 213 Cal. App. 3d 1378

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730462

## Case

- **Full name:** WILLIAM DAVID EVANS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** September 15, 1989
- **Citations:** 213 Cal. App. 3d 1378; 262 Cal. Rptr. 416; 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2992; 59 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,578; 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 719; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 940
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Woods
- **Judges:** Lillie, Woods
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730462

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding Railway Labor Act preemption when the CBA requires resolution of physical fitness questions through an exclusive grievance and arbitration process

## Opinion text

WOODS (Fred), J.
I concur in the judgment under the compulsion of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ], Colorado Comm'n v. Continental (1963) 372 U.S. 714 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 84 , 83 S.Ct. 1022 ] and Coppinger v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. (2d Cir. 1988) 861 F.2d 33 .
I respectfully express concern with existing law in that the arbitration process provided for under the Railway Labor Act of 1926 and as amended in 1934 is rendered virtually transitory in cases of mixed or nongeneric discrimination claims like the one in this instance. Under existing law, an employee who is fired for cause and loses the arbitration of his grievance dispute under the Railway Labor Act, can thumb his nose at the award, at the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and proceed de novo not only on his “termination for cause” decision, but on an independent action in the state court based upon a claim of discrimination, whether or not he deigned it appropriate to submit his discrimination claim to the arbitration process.
*1389 Prompt relief intended to be provided for by the arbitration provisions of the Railway Labor Act, under such a state of affairs, is transitory indeed.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 30, 1989.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730462. Public record. Not legal advice.