Mowry v. United Parcel Service

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that section 301 preempted the plaintiffs claim, because “determining whether [the defendant’s alleged conduct constituted the alleged claim] require[s] construction of [the defendant’s] rights and obligations under the CBA”
• stating that we review dismissal orders and preemption issues de novo
• reviewing detailed provisions of the CBA before concluding that plaintiff’s “claim is preempted by federal labor law”
• noting the Hawaiian Airlines Court applied the Lingle framework to the RLA
• noting the Hawaiian Airlines Court applied the Lingle framework to the RLA
• determination whether alleged conduct was outrageous required construction of employer’s rights and obligations under the CBA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).