Opinion ID: 518933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim.

Text: 37 This claim lacks specificity, and, arising out of the same conduct which formed the basis of the defamation claim, is likewise preempted under Sec. 301 for being essentially a claim that administration of discipline was improper under the standards set by the collective bargaining agreement[ ]. Truex v. Garrett Freightlines, Inc., 784 F.2d 1347, 1350 (9th Cir.1985). In contrast, in Tellez our finding that an emotional distress claim was not preempted by Sec. 301 hinged upon the fact that Tellez's CBA is silent on work conditions, and vague on disciplinary formalities. 817 F.2d at 539. 38