Barnes, et al v. Nabisco Inc

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20869
Summary Calendar
BELINDA BARNES; ESTELLE BERNSTINE;
SHIRLEY COLTER; GLORIA CASTRO;
SHEILA CONES; ALTON COMIER; SHARON
DAVIS; TAMMY GREEN; GLORIA NUNEZ;
JANIE RAMIEZ; PRINCESS STEWART;
GENEVA THERAGOOD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
NABISCO, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-2976
--------------------
February 25, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants, former employees of Nabisco, Inc., appeal the
district court’s final judgment granting Nabisco’s motion for
summary judgment and dismissing the case with prejudice. The
Employees argue on appeal that the district court erred in
denying their motion to remand to state court their worker’s

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-20869
-2-
compensation discrimination claim. The district court correctly
found that resolution of the Appellants’ claim will require
interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)
between the bakery employees and Nabisco and that their claim is
preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,
codified at 29 U.S.C. § 185. See Reece v. Houston Lighting &
Power Co., 79 F.3d 485, 487 (5th Cir. 1996). Because the
Appellants allege that Nabisco treated their request for
severance pay differently than other employees’ requests and
their right to severance pay stems solely from the CBA, the
Appellants’ state law claim is “inextricably intertwined” with
the terms of the CBA and is therefore preempted. See Thomas v.
LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --