Kollman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

369 F.3d 1209, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3120, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9216, 2004 WL 1050584
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided May 11, 2004·No. 03-14287·Published

Opinion

*1210 PER CURIAM:

After a thorough review of the record and the law relevant to this case, we AFFIRM the district court’s grants of summary judgment. With regard to Koll-man’s hybrid § 301/fair representation claims, we find that Kollman has failed to advance sufficient evidence to support his § 301 claim. Because we find that Koll-man’s fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims have no merit, we need not decide if they are precluded by Georgia’s Workers’ Compensation Act. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that under Georgia law, Holder cannot be held liable for tortious interference because Holder was not a “stranger” to Kollman’s employment agreement. 1

AFFIRMED.

1

. We deny Holder’s motion for sanctions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kollman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 369 F.3d 1209, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3120, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9216, 2004 WL 1050584 (11th Cir. 2004).

369 F.3d 1209 (Kollman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.