Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific 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 employees’ claim for compensation for employer-mandated travel time was not preempted by Section 301 where “the right to be compensated for employer-mandated travel exists as a matter of [California] state law”
• holding that “because the right to be compensated for employer-mandated travel exists as a matter of state law, independent of the CBAs, on this initial basis at least the employees’ claims are not preempted”
• explaining that Caterpillar’s complete preemption rule applies where “the plaintiffs’ claim is either grounded in the provisions of the labor contract or requires interpretation of it,” even if “the plaintiffs have not alleged a breach of contract in their complaint”
• “If the right exists solely as a result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted, and our analysis ends there”
• “If the right exists solely as a result of the CBA, 22 then the claim is preempted, and our analysis ends there.”
• “If the right 2 exists solely as a result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted, and our analysis ends there.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).