Kollman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Eleventh Circuit

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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 2004

Docket03-14287

StatusPublished

This text of 369 F.3d 1209 (Kollman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F.3d 1209, 174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3120, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 9216, 2004 WL 1050584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kollman-v-international-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-ca11-2004.