is such as to limit it to claims against debtors which were the employers in contractual privity with the employee-claimant under the contract in question.” Id. at 469. Thus, the court reasoned that § 502(b)(7) does not apply to claims for interference with an employment contract by someone who was not a party to the contract. See id. at 470. The court sought to avoid reading the application of § 502(b)(7) broadly because the provision “is in derogation of the general bankruptcy-law principle that creditors are to share ratably in a debtor’s estate, according to the priorities established under the Bankruptcy Code.” Id. at 469-70. Because Johnson had personally guaranteed the employment contract, the court went on to examine whethe tile, Inc.), 28 B.R. 181, 188 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1983) (<HOLDING>). But see In re Farley, Inc., 146 B.R. 739, 745
holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship holding that a breach of contract claim against one defendant related back to interference with contract claim against that defendant and breach of contract claim against second defendant because it was based on same set of operative facts holding that  502b7 then called  502b8 does not limit claim of employee against guarantors of employment contract holding that  502b6 does limit the claim of landlord against guarantordebtor holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee