context: Thus, this claim is also inextricably intertwined with the CBA; the Court must apply or interpret provisions of the CBA to determine whether Defendants acted improperly, without privilege and maliciously.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 112 F.3d 1532, 1540
citation_a.parenthetical: tortious-interference claim preempted where assessment of union's actions could only be done by interpreting CBAs, which may have allowed some of union's conduct
citation_a.sentence: See Bartholomew v. AGL Res., Inc., 361 F.3d 1333, 1340 (11th Cir.2004) (determining whether employer’s pre-termination statements were “improper” and “without privilege” required consideration of CBA; consequently, claim for tortious interference with business relations was preempted by LMRA); Pilkington v. United Airlines, 112 F.3d 1532, 1540 (11th Cir.1997) (tortious-interference claim preempted where assessment of union’s actions could only be done by interpreting CBAs, which may have allowed some of union’s conduct); see also Atwater, 626 F.3d at 1180 (negligence claim preempted because duties underlying claim arose directly from CBA).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 626 F.3d 1180, 1180
citation_b.parenthetical: negligence claim preempted because duties underlying claim arose directly from CBA
citation_b.sentence: See Bartholomew v. AGL Res., Inc., 361 F.3d 1333, 1340 (11th Cir.2004) (determining whether employer’s pre-termination statements were “improper” and “without privilege” required consideration of CBA; consequently, claim for tortious interference with business relations was preempted by LMRA); Pilkington v. United Airlines, 112 F.3d 1532, 1540 (11th Cir.1997) (tortious-interference claim preempted where assessment of union’s actions could only be done by interpreting CBAs, which may have allowed some of union’s conduct); see also Atwater, 626 F.3d at 1180 (negligence claim preempted because duties underlying claim arose directly from CBA).