and rejected by the Third Circuit, in Kline. Here, Defendant points to workplace and safety clauses in the CBAs and asserts that complete preemption must apply to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. This argument fails. The Court does not have to interpret any of the clauses in the CBAs in order for Plaintiffs to establish the scope of the duty. While it is possible that Defendant could point to some portion of a CBA in arguing that it acted reasonably, or to establish that it provided some type of warning as to certain occupational hazards, whether these statements provide a defense (in that they show Defendant acted reasonably, or that Defendant did not breach its duty of care) is a question of fact for the jury. See Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 232 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1371
holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance holding that  523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance holding that in interpreting the employees fraud claim whether there was justifiable reliance and extreme and outrageous conduct were purely factual questions which did not require interpretation of the cba or substantially depend on its construction