Whether FELA preempts state-law duties that require a defendant to settle and pay FELA claims even when the defendant has non-frivolous defenses to liability under FELA

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51, establishes a “uniform,” “comprehensive,” and “exclusive” federal regime governing railroads’ liability for employee on-the-job injuries. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Wintield, 244 U.S. 147, 150-51 (1917). More than a century of this Court’s cases hold that FELA “liability can neither be extended nor abridged by common or statutory laws of the state.” N.Y. Cent. & Hudson R.R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U.S. 360, 362 (1917). In the decision below, the Montana Supreme Court upheld state-law duties that interfere with and deprive defendants of FELA defenses. Specifically, Montana state law requires a defendant to enter into a “prompt, fair, and equitable settlement” when federal liability under FELA becomes “reasonably clear,” even if it has federal defenses that may ultimately prove to be meritorious. If the FELA defendant fails to settle and pay in that circumstance, it can be sued for emotional distress and punitive damages. The Montana Supreme Court held that FELA does not preempt such claims because FELA does not provide a remedy for “unfairly” refusing to settle, and therefore state law may “fill the space” left by Congress. The question presented is: Whether FELA preempts state-law duties that require a defendant to settle and pay FELA claims even when the defendant has non-frivolous defenses to liability under FELA.