Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 301 preempts “an application of state law ... only if such application requires the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement”
• holding that a claim for retaliatory discharge does not require construing the collective bargaining agreement and thus is not preempted
• holding that plaintiff may pursue state tort claim that does not involve construing collective bargaining agreement, even if collective bargaining agreement also provides remedy for wrong
• holding that the Illinois law protecting employees against retaliatory termination was not preempted, even though the employer's rationale for firing an employee necessarily related to \working conditions\
• concluding that state claims based on gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge are not preempted because such rights are “fully independent of any collective bargaining agreement”
• holding that a retaliatory discharge claim was not preempted because the elements of the state tort did not necessitate interpretation of a labor contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).