U.S. District Judge David A. Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia granted plaintiff Michael Barnhill’s motion to remand, rejecting Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s argument that federal law completely preempted the state tort claim for removal jurisdiction purposes.
Barnhill, a welding inspector hired by Mountain Valley in August 2023, alleged that he discovered corrosion in three sections of pipeline joints in November 2023. He reported the defects to his supervisor, who agreed the joints were out of compliance with federal safety regulations.
Despite the agreement, Mountain Valley’s chief inspector directed that the joints be installed. According to the complaint, the chief inspector told Barnhill, "If you want to keep your job, just install [the joints]."
Barnhill refused to approve the installation or create false inspection reports. He reported the noncompliance to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. After discovering another noncompliant weld in December and refusing to amend his report, Barnhill was terminated later that day.
Mountain Valley removed the case to federal court, arguing that the Pipeline Safety Act’s anti-retaliation provision and its broad preemption clause displaced Barnhill’s state-law claim for retaliatory discharge under the rule of Harless v. First National Bank of Fairmont.
Faber rejected the removal, noting that while the Act’s preemption provision is expansive, it is addressed to state actors and concerns state safety standards, not private employer-employee disputes.
The judge pointed to 49 U.S.C. § 60120(c), a "savings clause" in the Act that expressly preserves state tort law claims.
"The text of the Pipeline Safety Act and the caselaw applying it leave no doubt that it is the exclusive responsibility and prerogative of the federal government to regulate interstate pipeline safety to the exclusion of any competing regulation," Faber wrote. "Broad as the preemption provision is, there is nothing in it to suggest that it encompasses plaintiff's Harless claim."
Faber distinguished the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rayner v. Smith, which found the Federal Railroad Safety Act’s whistleblower provision to be the sole remedy for wrongful discharge. The Railroad Act lacked a savings clause preserving state tort claims, unlike the Pipeline Safety Act.
The court also denied Barnhill’s request for costs and fees associated with the removal, finding that Mountain Valley had an "objectively reasonable basis" for seeking removal despite ultimately being incorrect on the law.