Nash v. Florida Industrial Commission
1967 U.S. LEXIS 2799, 389 U.S. 235, 19 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause, a state may not deny unemployment benefits to an individual solely because they have filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, as such a denial imposes a financial burden that frustrates the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.
Facts:
- After a strike, Mrs. Nash was reinstated to her job at Stanley Works on April 14, 1965.
- Approximately five weeks later, on May 16, 1965, Stanley Works laid off Nash, citing 'slow production'.
- On June 17, 1965, while unemployed, Nash filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- In her charge, Nash alleged that Stanley Works had laid her off because of her union activities, which would violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- The Florida Industrial Commission had been paying Nash unemployment compensation since her layoff on May 16.
- The Commission stopped Nash's benefits as of June 17, the date she filed the NLRB charge.
- The Commission's reason for the denial was its interpretation that filing the NLRB charge converted her unemployment into one 'due to a labor dispute,' making her ineligible under a Florida statute.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Industrial Commission determined that Nash was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the period after she filed her NLRB charge.
- The Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the Commission's determination.
- Nash, the petitioner, applied for a writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, to review the Board's decision.
- The District Court of Appeal of Florida denied the petition for certiorari per curiam.
- Nash, the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that disqualifies an individual from receiving unemployment benefits solely because they filed an unfair labor practice charge against their former employer conflict with the National Labor Relations Act and thus violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The Florida law, as applied, violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is a comprehensive federal scheme that relies on the initiative of individuals to file unfair labor practice charges. Congress intended for individuals to be completely free from coercion when reporting such practices. By forcing an individual to choose between receiving unemployment compensation and filing an NLRA charge, Florida imposes a financial burden that directly tends to frustrate the purpose of Congress. This coercive choice impedes resort to the NLRB and thwarts the national labor policy. Citing McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court affirmed that states are devoid of power to 'retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.'
Analysis:
This decision is a strong affirmation of the doctrine of federal preemption in labor law. It establishes that states cannot use their public benefit systems, such as unemployment insurance, to indirectly penalize or discourage individuals from exercising their rights under federal law. The ruling broadly interprets coercion to include not just direct employer retaliation but also indirect financial pressure imposed by state policy. This case solidifies the principle that the Supremacy Clause protects not only the text of federal statutes but also the enforcement mechanisms and national objectives they are designed to achieve, ensuring unimpeded access to federal remedies.
Unlock the full brief for Nash v. Florida Industrial Commission