Kohama

MEMORANDUM *

Kurt Kohama (“Kohama”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against his contract claims and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim, 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

McCabe is entitled to summary judgment on Kohama’s claims for breach of express and implied contract. 1 Kohama alleges that McCabe violated sick leave provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and that he was terminated without being given the “fair treatment” promised by the CBA. These claims are “substantially dependent” on an analysis of the CBA and therefore preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. *537 § 185 (a). 2 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851 , 859 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 2161 , 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987). Section 301 preemption is appropriate where, as here, the employee’s claim requires us to interpret the terms of the CBA. 3 Firestone v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 219 F.3d 1063 , 1065 (9th Cir.2000); see Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 23 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (“[T]he preemptive force of §…