the bare fact that a [CBA] will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation plainly does not require the claim to be extinguished.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 125); see Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262 ("[A]s long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for. . . pre-emption purposes." (quoting Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 408–10 (1988))).
In Kobold, where the state law required employers to transmit paycheck deductions to health insurance plans in a timely manner, we held that the claim was not preempted at Burnside's second step because the CBA “unambiguously specif[ied]” the parties’ rights and obligations and therefore did not require interpretation. 832 F.3d at 1040; see also Balcorta, 208 F.3d at 1109–10 (holding claim not preempted where court is required to "read and apply" CBA provisions that are "neither uncertain nor ambiguous"). In Matson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 840 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2016), we held that a hostile work environment claim only "peripheral[ly]" involved the CBA and was not preempted because no interpretation of the CBA was required. Id. at 1134–35. Matson involved an employee who claimed that she was subject to a hostile work environment, in part because her supervisors assigned “extra work” in a way that favored male co-workers. Id. at 1129. The employer argued that the employee’s claim was preempted because the term "extra work" appeared in the CBA and her claim could not be resolved without interpreting the term. Id. at 1133. But the employee’s hostile work environment claim was not dependent upon consideration of the extra work assignments because her contention that extra work was disproportionately assigned to male coworkers was just one example of ways in
