648

Opinion of the Court.

libel in personam for the damages sustained by those to whom such right is given." Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233, 242. Like the Garcia suit, the present libel was brought under a State wrongful death statute. Ky. Rev. Stat., 1946, § 411.130. As we held in Garcia, a time limitation deemed attached to the right of action created by the State is binding in the federal forum. The Harrisburg, supra, 119 U. S., at 214. Similarly, when the statute, as it does in this case, vests the right of action in "the personal representative of the decedent," it is not for the forum provided by another jurisdiction to vest the right elsewhere; such a forum must look to the local law to determine the meaning of the phrase "personal representative." But the narrow question here is whether such a forum, accepting and enforcing the limited scope given to the right by the local law which created it, must also be bound by the dubious and perhaps conflicting intimations on elegantia juris to be found in local decisions, whether, that is, a federal court is imprisoned by procedural niceties relating to amendments of pleadings.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky heard this suit sitting in admiralty. Its jurisdiction did not derive from diversity of citizenship; indeed there was no such diversity. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, is irrelevant. The court in this case was not "in effect, only another court of the State," Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108. The reasons why the court heard the suit and why it deemed itself controlled by the Kentucky statute of limitations and by the Kentucky definition of "personal representative" are quite different. The District Court adopted and enforced the obligatio created by the State of Kentucky not because it sits in Kentucky and responds to the desirability of uniformity in the administration of justice within that State. In the absence of congressional action, the court adopted

and enforced the obligatio created by Kentucky as it would one originating in any foreign jurisdiction. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 138; The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 405. And it was bound to enforce it as it found it, but not bound beyond that to strive for uniformity of results in procedural niceties with the courts of the jurisdiction which originated the obligatio. Even in diversity cases, when "a right is enforceable in a federal as well as in a State court," and the federal court sits as "another court of the State," we have recognized that "the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, naturally enough, vary because the two judicial systems are not identic." Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, 326 U. S., at 108. Whether, if this were a diversity case, we would consider that we are here dealing with "forms and modes" or with matters more seriously affecting the enforcement of the right, it is clear that we are not dealing with an integral part of the right created by Kentucky.

We hold that federal practice controls the question whether the administrator, holding an effective appointment under Kentucky law, should be permitted to amend his libel so as to allege that appointment, at a time when the applicable statute of limitations would bar a new suit. And we hold that the administrator should be permitted to do so. Rule 23, Rules of Practice in Admiralty and Maritime Cases; cf. New York Central R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 346.

Affirmed.

Syllabus.

TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR,
INC. v. KOPPAL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 509. Argued April 8-9, 1953-Decided June 1, 1953.

A discharged employee of a carrier that was subject to the Railway Labor Act, claiming diversity of citizenship and the requisite jurisdictional amount, brought in a federal district court in Missouri an action under Missouri law for wrongful discharge. He failed to show that he had exhausted the administrative remedies prescribed by his employment contract. The employment contract was a Missouri contract and the administrative remedies prescribed therein were consistent with the Railway Labor Act. Held: The District Court properly dismissed the complaint. Pp. 654-662.

(a) A discharged employee of a carrier that is subject to the Railway Labor Act is not precluded by that Act from resorting to a state-recognized cause of action for wrongful discharge. Pp. 660–662.

(b) In an action under state law for wrongful discharge, brought by a discharged employee of a carrier that is subject to the Railway Labor Act, the employee must show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies under his contract of employment, if the applicable state law so requires. Pp. 654–657, 660–662.

(c) Under the law of Missouri, a discharged employee who brings an action against his employer for wrongful discharge must show exhaustion of administrative remedies under his employment contract in order to sustain his cause of action. Pp. 657-660. 199 F. 2d 117, reversed.

In an action brought by respondent against petitioner, based on diversity of citizenship, the District Court set aside a verdict for respondent and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. 199 F. 2d 117. This Court granted a limited certiorari. 344 U. S. 933. Reversed and remanded, p. 662.

Horace G. Hitchcock argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Gerald B. Brophy, Ruby D. Garrett, Harold L. Warner, Jr. and Francis E. Koch.

Fred J. Freel and Ray D. Jones, Jr. argued the cause for respondent. With them on the brief was John R. Baty.

MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents two questions: (1) whether a discharged employee of a carrier that is subject to the Railway Labor Act is precluded by that Act from resorting to a state-recognized cause of action for wrongful discharge and, if not, (2) whether, in such action, he must show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, under his contract of employment. For the reasons hereafter stated, our answer to the first question is no and to the second, yes, provided the applicable state law so requires. After stating the case, we shall discuss the second question first.

Respondent Koppal is a citizen of Kansas who, in 1949, was employed as a master mechanic in Kansas City, Missouri, by petitioner, Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., a Delaware corporation. At all times material to this case, petitioner has been a carrier by air, engaged in interstate commerce and subject to Title II of the Railway Labor Act.' The terms of respondent's employment contract were stated in a written agreement between petitioner and the International Association of Machinists. That association was a union which, for collectivebargaining purposes, represented respondent and the other mechanics in the employ of petitioner, although respondent was not a member of the union.

149 Stat. 1189 et seq., 45 U. S. C. §§ 181-188.

November 8, 1949, respondent reported to his employer by telephone that he was not well and would not be able to work that day. Before noon, a representative from petitioner's Industrial Relations Department made an unexpected call at respondent's home. He found respondent there with two of petitioner's employees, one of whom also had taken sick leave. While the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that respondent was not sufficiently ill to justify his staying at home and that, by prearrangement, he met there with two other employees while preparing to take an examination to qualify as a flight engineer. On respondent's return to work the next day, he was suspended from employment on a charge of abuse of the sick-leave provisions of his contract and notified that a hearing would be held on that charge November 11, pursuant to the grievance procedure in his contract. He attended the hearing, which was held before a representative of petitioner other than the one bringing the complaint. At its conclusion, the hearing officer stated that there had been a severe abuse of the sick-pay policy and that respondent would be discharged. In view of respondent's past favorable record, the hearing officer asked him whether he would prefer to resign and advised him that he could appeal even if he resigned.

Respondent resigned, stating that he did so "under protest." He took no appeal under his employment contract but, June 30, 1950, instituted the present proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, claiming diversity of citizenship and seeking $7.500 compensatory and $15,000 punitive damages.

During the trial, which was before a jury, petitioner (then defendant) moved for a directed verdict in its favor and made a similar motion at the close of evidence. Both motions were denied and the jury returned a verdict