Allen v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
988 F. Supp. 2d 293
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Allen sued UPS in NY state court for NYSHRL and NYCHRL; UPS removed to EDNY in 2012.
- Allen, employed by UPS 1993–2010 as a pre-loader; terminated around Oct 2009 after reporting a disabling injury.
- A scheduling order set Sept. 3, 2012, as the amend deadline; discovery deadlines were extended; counsel withdrew and new counsel appeared.
- May 28, 2013, Allen moved to amend to add a § 301 LMRA claim alleging breach of the CBA and related union-fair-representation claims.
- Judge Reyes recommended denying the motion to amend; this Court adopted the R&R in full.
- Allen filed timely objections; the court analyzes timeliness, good cause, and futility under Rule 15 and 16.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed § 301 hybrid claim is timely. | Allen argues accrual aligns with employer repudiation date. | UPS contends six-month limit applies due to hybrid claim under DelCostello. | Hybrid claim governed by six-month period; untimely. |
| Whether Allen showed good cause to extend the amendment deadline. | Allen contends diligence and excusable delay. | Allen did not show diligence; knew factual basis before deadline. | No good cause; Rule 16(b) not satisfied. |
| Whether the amendment would be futile under Rule 15(a). | Proposed pure § 301 claim due to employer repudiation of grievance procedures. | Second Circuit governs that a CBA providing a grievance process yields a hybrid claim; six-month limit applies. | Futility; hybrid § 301 claim time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (hybrid § 301/fair representation framework; six-month limit for hybrid claims)
- Carrion v. Enterprise Ass’n, 227 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2000) (hybrid § 301/fair representation analysis; scope of representation duty)
- Hoosier Cardinal Corp. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 383 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1966) (pure § 301 breach risk; six-year contract-limit analog)
- McKee v. Transco Prod., Inc., 874 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1989) (presence of grievance mechanism implies hybrid claim; accrual concepts)
- Dietz Co. v. Dietz, 996 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1993) (arbitration/grievance process affects hybrid status; timeliness considerations)
- Grace v. Rosenstock, 228 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2000) (amendment futility tied to statute of limitations and relation back)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (good-faith diligence standard for amendments)
- White v. White Rose Food, 128 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997) (limitations accrual for fair-representation claims)