The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases conflict as to the scope of Section 301 preemption. One line of cases holds that a claim is preempted if it relates to a dispute in the workplace that is subject to the grievance procedure under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Johnson vs. This line of cases also holds that defenses based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement should be considered in determining preemption of the state tort claim. Also, the fact that the defenses to the claim rely upon the Collective Bargaining Agreement does not create a basis for 301 preemption. These different approaches have led to contradictory preemption decisions in the Eight Circuit.
Similar contradictions exist in the court's rulings regarding defamation.
Also, the Court's rulings regarding preemption of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims conflict. In Gore, the Court considered whether the plaintiff union member's complaint asserting claims of false arrest, negligence, libel and slander, and invasion of privacy for publicly placing him in a false light and public disclosure of private facts was preempted. As to the false arrest claim, the Court held that the claim was preempted because Gore's alleged statements that he would do violence to other employees caused a serious security concern in the workplace and, therefore, Gore's burden to prove that he was falsely arrested without legal justification would necessarily require an interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement to determine whether defendants acted contrary to their duties under the agreement. The duty allegedly breached is defined by the agreement that governs the employment relationship. In finding the claims to be preempted, the Court made it clear that it was not holding that preemption may be based on a federal defense.