explaining that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the claim accrued
How later courts described this case
- explaining that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the claim accrued
- as contract provided job security, it was unnecessary to decide whether state law conferred nonnegotiable job security protection
- since the job security is the same, federal preemption jeopardizes no independent state right
- implied covenant claim preempted because “[tjhere is no indication that the ‘good cause’ provision of [the plaintiff’s] contract provided any less protection than California wrongful termination law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur. If a state tort claim for wrongful discharge is encompassed also by the federal law pertaining to violation of the obligations of a collective bargaining agreement, federal law will control the case; and removal to a federal forum cannot be prevented merely by the structure of the state court pleadings. Olquin v. Consolidated Copper Co., 740 F.2d 1468, 1474 (9th Cir. 1984). Counsel must be alert to the consequence that in such cases the federal statute of limitations rule, not the limitations statute of the state, will be applicable. That is the case here.