Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 24, 1985; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Steven D. Simon v. Kroger Company, which involved the application of Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act concerning the timeliness of filing an unfair labor practice charge. Section 10(b) mandates that a charge must be filed and served within six months of the alleged unfair practice, a requirement upheld by the National Labor Relations Board. In this case, Simon was discharged by Kroger on February 18, 1982, and after unsuccessful grievance procedures, he filed a lawsuit on January 3, 1983, within the six-month limit, but served the complaint on Kroger on January 12, 1983, after the six-month period had expired. The District Court granted summary judgment for Kroger and the union on the basis that the action was time-barred, a decision affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court emphasized that both filing and service must occur within the six-month window. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the inconsistency between federal procedural norms and the strict requirements of Section 10(b), suggesting that the ruling effectively shortens the limitations period by the time necessary for service, which could lead to unjust outcomes in judicial proceedings compared to administrative ones where service is simpler.
The Eleventh Circuit has addressed the issue multiple times, notably in Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., and anticipates it will arise again. A contrary decision was made by a District Court in another Circuit, as seen in Williams v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit ruled in Smith v. General Motors Corp. that a complaint filed just under the six-month mark was timely, without addressing the defendants' service within the following days. This issue is closely related to the DelCostello decision and should be resolved promptly. The lower court's decision also involved the petitioner's lack of response to Kroger's motion for summary judgment, which only affects Kroger. However, the judgment favoring the union is based solely on the statute of limitations, and the existence of an alternative holding does not diminish the impact of the court's 10(b) ruling, as established in precedents like Richmond Co. v. United States and Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City, Fort Dodge R. Co.
