Opinion ID: 2999611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preemption: Counts 5,6, and 8

Text: The district court held that these state law counts were preempted, but in doing so the court merged distinct preemption doctrines as one. While § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), preempts claims that require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, “it is important to remember that other federal labor-law principles may pre-empt state law.” Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 409 n.8 (1988) (emphasis added); see also Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985) (holding § 301 preempts state law claims that are substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between No. 05-3555 9 the parties in a labor contract). One of these other types of preemption is so-called Garmon preemption, which forbids state regulation of conduct that is arguably protected or prohibited by federal law. See, e.g., San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245 (1959). On appeal, the Union has made clear that its preemption argument relies on Garmon and its progeny.3 See Ehredt Underground, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 90 F.3d 238, 241 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a tortious interference with contract claim was preempted by Garmon). Reinke does not dispute Garmon’s preemptive force, but instead argues that its claims fall within an exception to Garmon preemption because of the Union’s actual malice. See Keehr v. Consolidated Freightways of Delaware, Inc., 825 F.2d 133, 136-37 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not preempted by Garmon when, among other things, it is “based on ‘outrageous’ conduct and not simply ‘on the type of robust language . . . that may be commonplace in various labor contexts’ ”) (quoting Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners, 430 U.S. 290, 306 (1977)). We must necessarily reject this argument, as we have already found that the record in this case cannot support such a finding.