Black v. Anheuser-Busch in Bev, 1:14-cv-02693

Background

Randall M. Black, a pro se former helper/driver and Teamsters Local 812 member, worked for Anheuser‑Busch at its Bronx facility and took a leave beginning June 12, 2012 after a delivery injury.
The applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provided that an employee who performs no active work for more than one year loses seniority and employment.
Anheuser‑Busch offered Black a restricted‑duty position after an IME in March 2013; Black did not respond and did not return to work.
On June 14, 2013 a supervisor informed Black his one‑year leave had passed and his employment was terminated; Black filed a grievance with the union (Martinez/Teamsters Local 812), which was not taken to arbitration.
Black sued alleging sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and breach of contract; the Court previously dismissed the harassment/discrimination/retaliation claims and dismissed a hybrid §301/fair‑representation claim as time‑barred.
Anheuser‑Busch moved for summary judgment on the remaining breach‑of‑contract claim; the court granted the motion and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anheuser‑Busch breached the CBA by terminating Black	Black claims wrongful termination and refers to employer "responsibilities" tied to alleged workplace harassment policies	Anheuser‑Busch points to CBA provisions terminating seniority after one year of inactivity and that Black never accepted restricted duty or returned to work	Court: No breach of the CBA shown; Black admitted the CBA condition and did not rebut it
Whether Black pleaded a valid §301 breach of contract claim	Black's complaint alleges employer failed to update/enforce harassment policy and links termination to those issues	Defendants: complaint does not allege employer violated the CBA; plaintiff’s statements refer to harassment policy, not CBA terms	Court: Pleadings and deposition confirm plaintiff did not assert an employer breach of the CBA
Whether hybrid §301/fair‑representation claim precludes standalone suit against employer	Black argues union failed to inform management of his status and mishandled grievance	Defendants: even if employer sued, hybrid claims require proof the union breached its duty; prior orders found union claim time‑barred	Court: Law of the case — prior dismissal of hybrid §301/DFR claim bars any remaining breach‑of‑contract claim against employer
Whether any breach‑of‑contract claim is timely	Black filed complaint Jan 6, 2014 after June 14, 2013 termination	Defendants: hybrid §301/DFR claims are subject to a six‑month statute of limitations from knowledge of breach	Court: Any §301 claim arising from June 14, 2013 termination filed after six months is time‑barred

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant may show absence of evidence for essential element)
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (employee may sue employer only if union breached duty of fair representation)
DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (hybrid §301/DFR claims subject to six‑month limitations)
Carrion v. Enterprise Association, 227 F.3d 29 (hybrid §301/DFR requirement that employee prove union breach applies to employer claims)
Tomney v. International Center for the Disabled, 357 F. Supp. 2d 721 (no union DFR breach moots CBA claims against employer)
Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 536 F.3d 140 (non‑movant must present admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment)