Michael Lee Thomas v. Ltv Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding IIED claim was preempted because “[t]o determine whether LTV’s conduct was wrongful under the circumstances, an analysis of the collective-bargaining agreement is necessary”
• plaintiff alleged “that LTV’s ‘extreme and outrageous conduct’ in the handling of the disciplinary matters” constituted IIED
• Section 301 of the LMRA “provides the requisite jurisdiction and remedies for individual employees covered under a collective-bargaining agreement between that individual’s employer and the union”
• “Preemption occurs (under section 301) when a decision on the state claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract or when the application of state law to a dispute requires interpretation of the [CBA]”
• hold- ing that an employee had presented a hybrid claim--even though he had not sued his union--because in order to prevail in his Section 301 suit against his employer, he would have to show that his union failed fairly to represent him in the grievance proceedings
• affirming grant of summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).