Rick Allen v. Kaiser Permanente

MEMORANDUM

Rick Alen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action arising out of his placement on indefinite administrative leave. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed A-len’s state law retaliation claim for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because the National Labor Relations Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over claims for unfair labor practices. See 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1), (3) (prohibiting discharge or termination of employees due to their union membership and activities as “unfair labor practices”); Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 83 , 102 S.Ct. 851 , 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) (“As a general rule, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over activity which ‘is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) ],’ and they ‘must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board.’ ” (quoting San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245 , 79 S.Ct. 773 , 3…