Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Pimental v. United States

Pimental v. United States, 498 U.S. 835 (1990)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1990-10-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • emotional distress claim based on attendance policy preempted because it was covered by a codeetive bargaining agreement
  • employee’s claims for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional infliction of emotional distress were preempted by section 301
  • emotional distress claim arising out of application of attendance policy pre-empted because “determination of both the scope of Alumax’s control over the attendance policy and any consequences flowing from a violation of the policy are dependent upon an analysis of the [CBA]”
  • employee must bring claim under § 301 within six months
  • emo-tional distress claim arising out of application of attendance policy pre-empted because "determination of both the scope of Alumax's control over the attendance policy and any consequences flowing from a violation of the policy are dependent upon an analysis of the [CBA] ”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Pimental v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
32 opinions

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.