Taing
Taing v. Boeing Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
This case stems from events that transpired in a meeting between a Boeing employee named Hong Kim Taing, her supervisor, and a union representative. Taing appeals the dismissal of her Washington tort of outrage claim, which, on a motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed as preempted under § 301 of the LMRA. 1 Although we find that the claim as alleged is not preempted, we neverthe *808 less affirm the district court’s dismissal on the grounds that there is no disputed issue of material fact on the question of whether the conduct at issue was outrageous.
1. Background
On December 13, 1999, Hong Kim Taing and another employee were called into a meeting by a supervisor (Darcy Farrens) about possible mistreatment of a pregnant employee who was rumored to be keeping her job, while Taing and others were being laid off. A union representative, Charles (Chuck) Ewen, was also present. After the meeting was over, Taing immediately approached' another supervisor named Dave Groves to discuss with him what it was that caused her to get in trouble. 2 Overhearing some aspect of this interaction, Farrens called Taing back into the meeting room for a second time,…
Concurring Opinion
Rawlinson, J.
Concurring.
I concur in the result.