reasonable accommodation law. Accordingly, her outrage claim is preempted. To the exte ing to impart a technical meaning to the term, we view a state duty as "negotiable” if it is only a default rule around which the parties may contract, or if the existence of a breach of the duty under state law might be tempered or nullified by agreement of the parties. 4 . Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 104, 106, 82 S.Ct. 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962). 5 . Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 209-10, 105 S.Ct. 1904 (citing Lucas Flour, 369 U.S. at 103-04, 82 S.Ct. 571). 6 . Id. at 219-20, 105 S.Ct. 1904. 7 . Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 408-09, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988). 8 . See Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 122, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 93 (1994) (<HOLDING>). 9 . 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc),
holding that the need to look to the cba to determine the plaintiffs rate of pay did not trigger preemption holding the right at issue arose out of state law because bjeyond the simple need to refer to bargainedfor wage rates in computing the penalty the collectivebargaining agreement was irrelevant to the dispute holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract holding that a plan providing severance pay for reduction in work force simply did not contemplate the effect of a sale of a business on the availability of severance pay holding that the need to refer to wage rate in the cba to calculate damages did not preempt a state rule governing the timing of severance pay