Watts v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Martin did not prohibit a plaintiff from vindicating her statutory rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act rather than the LMRA
• holding “the motivating purpose of § 301 preemption” did not apply to plaintiff’s federal cause of action brought in federal court
• holding defendant’s reliance on the CBA in defense of plaintiff’s ADA claim did not convert plaintiff’s claim into a § 301 claim
• “[T]he preemption doctrine is inapposite when applied to federal anti-discrimination claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).