Calderon v. United States Postal Service
1:18-cv-07085
| E.D.N.Y | Apr 25, 2022Background
- Calderon was hired as a non‑career transitional employee (TE) in 2011; TE positions were phased out in 2013 and conversion to CCA required passing an exam. He passed the exam in March 2013 but his TE appointment ended April 10, 2013, and he was not appointed a CCA until April 12, 2014.
- NALC (Branch 41) filed multiple grievances on Calderon’s behalf challenging the April 2013 termination and seniority/pay calculations; three early grievances were denied at Step B (untimely or lacking proof).
- A March 2015 grievance succeeded: the Step B team (April 2015 Decision) found merit and ordered USPS to make Calderon whole for the period he should have been converted prior to another employee; later Step B orders (Non‑Compliance Decision and November 2015 Decision) addressed compliance and a pay anomaly and directed further review by Shared Services.
- USPS adjusted Calderon’s seniority and later (in 2016 payroll records) paid an additional $2,345.69 reflecting a prior pay error; Calderon disputes completeness of relief but offered no countervailing payroll evidence.
- Both sides pursued administrative steps (NLRB ULP filings by the union and Calderon); Calderon sued in federal court asserting breach of contract against USPS and breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR) against NALC; the court recharacterized the contract claim under §301 LMRA (a hybrid action).
- The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, holding Calderon failed to prove NALC breached the DFR (and thus his hybrid claim against USPS cannot succeed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did NALC breach the duty of fair representation by mishandling grievances and failing to press for full relief? | NALC was negligent, filed untimely/insufficient grievances, failed to pursue punitive monetary relief and did not enforce documentation orders, causing his loss. | NALC vigorously advocated: filed multiple grievances (one successful), pursued meetings with USPS, filed an NLRB ULP; any errors were negligent or tactical, not arbitrary or in bad faith, and Calderon was not prejudiced. | No DFR breach. Failures were at most negligence/strategy; Calderon cannot show arbitariness/bad faith or causation. Summary judgment for NALC. |
| Did USPS breach the CBA by failing to pay Calderon for the year he was not employed (Apr 2013–Apr 2014)? | The April 2015 Decision’s order to make Calderon “whole in all aspects” required pay for the year he was out of USPS. | USPS contends it complied by adjusting seniority and awarding back pay only for the period after Calderon rejoined as a CCA; it was not required to pay for time when Calderon was not employed. | Court did not resolve the merits because Calderon’s claim against USPS depends on proving a union breach; because NALC did not breach the DFR, Calderon’s claim against USPS fails and is dismissed. |
| Is Calderon’s state‑law breach of contract claim preempted by federal law and properly treated as a §301 LMRA claim (hybrid action)? | Initially pled as breach of contract; seeks relief under the CBA. | Defendants: state contract claim is preempted by §301 and must be litigated as a federal §301 claim together with any DFR claim. | Yes. The court re‑framed the claim under §301 and treated the case as a hybrid §301/DFR action. |
| Are defendants entitled to summary judgment? | Calderon: factual disputes remain (completeness of back pay, union misconduct) precluding summary judgment. | Defendants: undisputed record shows no DFR breach and sufficient compliance; no triable issue on union breach; therefore summary judgment is proper. | Yes. Summary judgment granted for both defendants; judgment entered for USPS and NALC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (state‑law contract claims are preempted by §301 LMRA)
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (recognizing hybrid §301/DFR actions and interdependence of employer and union claims)
- Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (DFR arbitrary standard: decision must be "so far outside a wide range of reasonableness" to be arbitrary)
- White v. White Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174 (elements of a DFR claim: arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, plus causation)
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Loc. No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (DFR is inferred from unions’ statutory representative role)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment allocation of burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for assessing genuine disputes at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must present specific facts to oppose summary judgment)
- Spellacy v. Airline Pilots Ass'n–Int'l, 156 F.3d 120 (bad faith requires improper motive, fraudulent or deceitful conduct)