Bishop v. Bell Atlantic Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because the wording in section 837 of the MWPA was critical to its preemption, the lack of similar wording in the MHRA means no preemption
• indicating that “preemption applies only when there is a ‘real interpretive dispute’ of a CBA’s terms” (citing Lydon, 175 F.3d at 10)
• basing its finding of preemption on the language of the MWPA not the facts of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).