collective bargaining agreement is the subject of the dispute or the dispute is substantially dependent upon an analysis of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, an employer cannot ensure the preclusion of a plaintiff's claim merely by asserting certain CBA-based defenses to what is essentially a non-CBA-based claim, or by arguing that the action challenged by the plaintiff is arguably justified by the terms of a CBA. Nor will a claim be precluded merely because certain provisions of the CBA must be examined and weighed as a relevant but non-dispositive factor in deciding a claim or a defense.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). 22 . 79 F.3d 485, 487-88 (5th Cir.1996). 23 . Id. at 487. 24 . Saridakis v. United Airlines, 166 F.3d 1272, 1277 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding consortium claim unavailable under title vii and ada holding ada claim was discharged holding that ada claim is independent of cba and thus minor dispute holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government