Su Humble v. Boeing Company, a Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Cramer “revised [the] framework for analyzing § 301 preemption and synthesized the considerations involved”
• implying that Section 301 preemption analysis is the same for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims
• explaining that 13 “a CBA provision does not trigger preemption when it is only potentially relevant to the state law 14 claims, without any guarantee that interpretation or direct reliance on the CBA terms will occur”
• holding 15 reasonable accommodation claim under WLAD was not preempted
• noting plaintiff need not rely on CBA to enforce the non-negotiable but parallel, 24 independent, and “more extensive” rights to reasonable accommodation under WLAD
• declining to find complete preemption 11 under an analogous statute where the WLAD provided “independent, and more extensive 12 reasonable accommodation duties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).