Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Fishman, 9 N.Y.3d 467 (2007)
r
r
A state law claim for private nuisance is not preempted by federal labor law when the regulated conduct is of peripheral concern to federal labor law and touches interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.
r
r
Summary
r
Helmsley-Spear, managing agent of the Empire State Building (ESB), sued a union for private nuisance, seeking to enjoin the union from drumming outside the ESB during their leafleting campaign. The NLRB had previously dismissed unfair labor practice charges filed by Copstat (the security firm being organized) against the Union, finding the drumming did not transform the leafleting into unlawful conduct. The New York Court of Appeals held that the nuisance claim was not preempted by federal labor law, emphasizing the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from obnoxious conduct and the limited scope of the injunction, which only restricted drumming, not leafleting.
r
r
Facts
r
Helmsley-Spear, Inc., managing agent of the Empire State Building (ESB), hired Copstat Security, LLC. to provide security. In 2005, the Union began organizing Copstat employees and, as part of this effort, Union members assembled outside the ESB on 18 days, distributing leaflets while drumming on various containers. Nearby business owners also joined the lawsuit.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Copstat filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB, which were dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal, finding the leafleting was protected and the drumming insufficient to make it unlawful. Helmsley-Spear and nearby business owners then sued the Union for private nuisance in state court. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction against the drumming. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the claim was preempted by federal labor law because the NLRB had determined the drumming was permissible. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a private nuisance claim brought in state court, seeking to enjoin union drumming activities associated with otherwise protected leafleting, is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the state’s interest in regulating noise and protecting its citizens from nuisances is deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility, and the injunction was narrowly tailored to address the noise without prohibiting the leafleting itself.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals applied the Garmon preemption doctrine, which states that state regulations are preempted if they concern conduct that is actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA. However, even if the drumming was arguably protected, an exception exists for behavior of peripheral concern to federal law that touches interests deeply rooted in local feeling. Quoting San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959), the court noted plaintiffs’ nuisance claim “touche[s] interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility” that it could not be inferred that Congress intended to deprive this State of the power to act. The court analogized the case to Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978), where a state trespass claim was not preempted because it concerned the location of picketing, not the picketing itself. Here, the injunction was limited to the drumming, not the leafleting. The court rejected the Union’s argument that Machinists preemption applied, finding that the drumming was not an