Legal Definitions - Marcus model

The Marcus model is a specific legal framework used in United States labor law to determine whether a state-law claim brought by a union member against their employer can proceed under state law, or if it is "preempted" by federal labor law. When a state-law claim is preempted, it means that federal law takes precedence, and the claim cannot be pursued in state court because it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal labor statutes and the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

The core focus of the Marcus model is on whether the state-law claim can be resolved independently of interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. If the facts and legal standards necessary to decide the state-law claim do not require an analysis or interpretation of the specific terms or provisions of the CBA, then the claim is generally not preempted and can proceed in state court. Conversely, if resolving the state-law claim would necessitate examining, interpreting, or applying provisions of the CBA, then it *is* preempted by federal law, and must typically be addressed through the federal grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the CBA. This model emphasizes the factual and legal independence of the state-law claim from the contractual terms agreed upon in the CBA.

• Example 1: State Minimum Wage Violation

  Imagine a unionized employee who claims their employer paid them less than the state's statutory minimum wage for certain hours worked. The collective bargaining agreement specifies hourly rates for various job classifications, but it does not contain any provisions that would need interpretation to determine if the state minimum wage was met for the hours in question. The state law provides a clear, independent standard for minimum pay.

  How it illustrates the Marcus model: To resolve this claim, a court would primarily need to examine the state's minimum wage statute and the employee's pay records. It would not need to interpret any specific clauses or provisions within the collective bargaining agreement to determine if the employer violated state law. Because the state-law claim can be resolved independently of the CBA's terms, under the Marcus model, this claim would likely not be preempted by federal labor law.

• Example 2: Dispute Over Seniority-Based Promotion

  Consider a union member who believes they were unfairly passed over for a promotion in favor of a less senior colleague, alleging a violation of the company's internal promotion policy. However, the collective bargaining agreement contains detailed provisions outlining promotion criteria, seniority rules, and the specific grievance procedure for such disputes. The employee files a state-law claim alleging a breach of an implied contract based on the company's general promotion policies.

  How it illustrates the Marcus model: To determine if the employee's claim has merit, a court would inevitably need to interpret the specific seniority clauses, promotion procedures, and dispute resolution mechanisms laid out in the collective bargaining agreement. The state-law claim cannot be resolved without understanding and applying the terms of the CBA. Consequently, under the Marcus model, this claim would likely be preempted by federal labor law, meaning it would need to be addressed through the federal grievance and arbitration process outlined in the CBA.

• Example 3: State-Law Whistleblower Protection Claim

  A unionized employee reports unsafe working conditions to a state regulatory agency and is subsequently fired. The employee then files a state-law claim alleging retaliation under a state's whistleblower protection statute. While the collective bargaining agreement outlines general "just cause" for termination and disciplinary procedures, it does not contain specific provisions related to whistleblower protections that would need interpretation to determine if the state law was violated. The state law provides an independent right for employees to report safety violations without fear of reprisal.

  How it illustrates the Marcus model: To resolve this whistleblower claim, a court would primarily examine the state's whistleblower protection law and the facts surrounding the employee's report and subsequent termination to see if retaliation occurred. While the CBA might be referenced for background on the employment relationship, the core legal inquiry into whistleblower retaliation does not require interpreting the CBA's terms. The state law provides an independent standard. Therefore, under the Marcus model, this state-law claim would likely not be preempted.