Legal Opinion
Michelle Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Company and Buck Isbell
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided September 9, 1993No. 92-3176PublishedCited by 240 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
This case began as a suit for damages brought in state court by eight female workers who complained that they had been subjected to video surveillance in violation of their tort right of privacy. Arguing that the suit actually arose not under state tort law but under section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, because it required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the company removed the case to federal district court, then moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to file a grievance within the thirty days…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by240 opinions
- Musson Theatrical, Inc., and Modernage Photo Service, Inc., for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Federal Express CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Williams v. Citigroup Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- James Donald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Stromberg Metal Works, Inc., and Comfort Control, Inc. v. Press Mechanical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
235 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.