In the 1993 case of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Grant T. Norris, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempts state-law wrongful discharge claims when an airline employee's complaint is "arguably" subject to sections of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA was enacted to promote stability in labor-management relations within the railroad and airline industries by providing effective and efficient mechanisms for resolving disputes arising out of grievances or collective bargaining agreements. In this case, mechanic Grant T. Norris claimed he was wrongfully terminated by Hawaiian Airlines after reporting safety violations; however, his claim fell under a minor dispute as per RLA since it involved interpretation or application of their collective-bargaining agreement terms regarding termination procedures which should have been resolved through arbitration process provided under RLA rather than litigation in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Grant T. Norris, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). He argued that it was not Congress' intention to allow employees to bypass arbitration procedures outlined in collective bargaining agreements and instead file lawsuits directly against their employers under state law claims. According to him, this would undermine a key purpose of RLA - promoting stability in labor-management relations through effective dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration. The majority’s decision could potentially lead to inconsistent judgments and disrupt uniformity in national labor policy by allowing individual states’ laws to interfere with federally regulated matters such as airline industry disputes.