Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pearson v. United Automobile Workers International Union
Citation: 628 F. App'x 937Docket: No. 15-3139
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; October 15, 2015; Federal Appellate Court
Timothy Pearson appeals the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the United Auto Workers (UAW) in his breach of fair representation lawsuit. Ford Motor Company terminated Pearson, and the UAW filed a grievance arguing the termination lacked just cause. Ford's arbitration manager, John Wright, made a pre-retirement leave settlement offer to UAW representatives in April 2008, which was rejected. A subsequent offer in August or September 2008 was also declined. Pearson lost at arbitration and received only a minimal deferred benefit. In May 2012, during discovery in a related case, Pearson learned of the prior settlement offers through internal Ford emails. He filed his complaint on December 17, 2012. The UAW moved for summary judgment, claiming Pearson did not file within the six-month statute of limitations applicable to such actions. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment. The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, affirming that it is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Unions have a legal duty to fairly represent all employees, and breaches must be filed within six months of discovery. The limitations period begins when the claimant discovers or should have reasonably discovered the violation. Actions based on continuing improper practices accrue separately for each instance occurring within six months of filing. Plaintiff asserts he was unaware of Ford's April 2008 offer until a June 15, 2012 deposition, claiming that Ford's May 14, 2012 disclosures only suggested possible wrongdoing. However, the court found that Ford's disclosures were sufficient to notify a reasonable person of relevant facts regarding the April 2008 offer, including Wright's attempts to resolve the grievance and offer pre-retirement leave. The information indicated a potential failure by union representatives to communicate the offer, which constituted a breach of their duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim from the April 2008 breach accrued on May 14, 2012, rendering the action untimely. Regarding the second offer, while the District Court acknowledged an August or September 2008 offer, it did not evaluate the timeliness of plaintiff's claim related to this offer. Plaintiff discovered this offer only during the June 15, 2012 deposition and argued that the defendant’s failure to communicate it represented a continuing violation, allowing the claim to accrue on that date. Citing the Sevako case, the court noted that repeated failures to convey settlement offers constitute distinct breaches of duty, leading to separate claims. As the plaintiff's complaint was filed within six months of the June 15, 2012 discovery, it was deemed timely. The court did not address the defendant’s claims regarding the exhaustion of internal union remedies and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, vacating the District Court's prior order.