Bullock v. Donohoe
71 F. Supp. 3d 31
D.D.C.2014Background
- Bullock, a former USPS letter carrier, was fired in May 2010 for allegedly presenting fraudulent documentation and attendance issues.
- Bullock was incarcerated Oct 23–Dec 14, 2009 and says he informed his supervisor during a November 2009 call.
- NALC/USPS Step B concluded there was just cause to remove him; EEOC decision issued May 9, 2013, advising a 90-day window to sue.
- Clerk’s filing irregularities: August 29, 2013 filing-like markings; formal filing occurred October 8, 2013 after in forma pauperis grant.
- Bullock filed a complaint raising Rehabilitation Act claims and, possibly, a hybrid § 301/fair-representation claim against the union.
- Court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion, with limited discovery on timeliness and a schedule for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Rehabilitation Act claim | Bullock's July 30, 2013 receipt supports timely filing | Receipt authenticity questionable; filing may be untimely | Rehabilitation Act claim timely; discovery on timeliness allowed |
| Hybrid § 301/fair representation claim timeliness | Union duty claim should survive | Six-month NLRA §10(b) limit applies | Dismissed for untimeliness as to duty of fair representation |
| Duties of fair representation claim viability after accrual | N/A | N/A | Dismissed; no viable timely hybrid claim |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (six-month limitations for unfair labor practices in duty of fair representation)
- George v. Local Union No. 639, I.B.T., 100 F.3d 1008 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (apply §10(b) six-month limit to fair representation claims)
- Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (court may consider attached/exchanged documents in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Ward v. D.C. Dep't of Youth Rehab. Servs., 68 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2011) (documents upon which complaint relies may be considered on motion to dismiss)
- Cephas v. MVM, Inc., 520 F.3d 480 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (hybrid §301/fair representation claims discussed)
- Legille v. Dann, 544 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (rebuttable presumption of timely delivery when proof of mailing)