Michelle Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Company and Buck Isbell

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that state law privacy claim was preempted because \it was arguably within the scope of the [collective bargaining] agreement\ (emphasis added)
• noting that plaintiffs’ failure to file grievance by deadline outlined in collective bargaining agreement precluded their claim in federal court
• holding that retention of a state law claim is appropriate when the correct disposition of the claim is \so clear as a matter of state law that it can be determined without further trial proceedings and without entanglement with any difficult issues of state law...\
• noting specifically that the employer's action had not been made illegal under Illinois law
• noting specifically that the employer's action had not been made illegal under Illinois law
• pointing out that section 301 imposes a gap in legal protection for vindication of employees’ rights, stating, “So the remedial gap remains—maybe intentionally. Maybe the idea is that if a matter is one that the parties could regulate by contract, ... they ought to do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).