S 2d 743, 748 (9th Cir.1993) (explaining that Section 301 904 (finding breach of duty of good faith claim preempted under Section 301 because the CBA created the duty upon which the claim was founded); Cephas v. MVM, Inc., 520 F.3d 480, 484 (D.C.Cir.2008) (finding preemption under Section 301 when the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had transferred him in violation of the company’s collective bargaining agreement); General Productions, LLC v. I.A.T.S.E. Local 179, 981 F.Supp.2d 1357, 1361 (N.D.Ga.2013) (plaintiffs trespass claim against union representative was preempted because a CBA provision provided that plaintiff “[shall] permit an authorized representative of the Union access to all production sites”); Bush v. Clark Const. & Concrete Corp., 267 F.Supp.2d 43, 46 (D.D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>). With this framework as a guide, the Court now
holding that plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claim under michigan law was not preempted because the statelaw tort of retaliatory discharge creates rights independent of those established by the collective bargaining agreement further holding that discrimination claim was not preempted even though the employer was likely to rely on provisions of the cba in its defense holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment holding that the plaintiffs claim that he was owed wages following his discharge was preempted because this right was created by a cba provision stating that an employee who is discharged shall be paid immediately holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301 holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by section 301 because employers duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the cba