S.M. v. N.G.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “an employee’s state-tort action that necessarily rests on an interpretation of [the] terms [of the collective bargaining agreement] is pre-empted by sec. 301”
• holding that an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement’s terms was necessary in tortious breach of contract claim
• holding that section 301 preemption occurs when the plaintiff’s claims are “substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.”
• holding that § 301 preemption occurs when the plaintiff’s claims are “substantially dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agreement”
• concluding that it was necessary to interpret a collective bargaining agreement to determine the existence and scope of union's implied duty to ensure a safe workplace
• holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by Section 301 because employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the CBA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).