DeGrandis v. Children's Hospital Boston
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20007
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- DeGrandis was fired from Children’s Hospital Boston in February 2008 for alleged failure to meet job performance standards.
- The Hospital and DeGrandis were bound by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with Local 877; the CBA requires just cause and provides a grievance/arbitration process.
- In July 2007, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) waived the CBA’s grievance/arbitration procedures for a 12-month period if termination was for failure to comply with generally applicable work standards.
- DeGrandis and the Hospital entered into the MOA after a 2007 grievance; seven months later DeGrandis was terminated for performance reasons despite the MOA.
- Because the MOA waived grievance/arbitration, DeGrandis could sue in federal court under §301 LMRA for breach of contract without exhausting the CBA’s procedures.
- The district court dismissed DeGrandis’s LMRA claim as untimely under hybrid claim limitations, which the First Circuit later rejected, holding the six-year contract-based limitations apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What statute of limitations applies to LMRA §301 breach claims? | DeGrandis should apply six-year contract limits. | Hospital argues for six-month hybrid claim limit if a duty of representation is implicated. | Six-year statute applies; not a hybrid claim. |
| Does the MOA’s waiver of grievance/arbitration defeat exhaustion/finality barriers to suit? | MOA precludes exhaustion/finality barriers, enabling timely federal suit. | MOA may foreclose review by exhausting remedies or triggering finality rules. | MOA waiver removes exhaustion/finality barriers for the 2008 termination claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramírez-Lebrón v. Int'l Shipping Agency, Inc., 593 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2010) (exhaustion/finality rules govern §301 claims unless waiver or impugning arbitration applies)
- Daigle v. Gulf State Utils. Co., Local Union No. 2286, 794 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1986) (if no exclusive remedy exists in the contract, §301 review is possible)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (Supreme Court 1967) (duty of fair representation and arbitration procedure integrity considerations)
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (Supreme Court 1983) (hybrid claim limitations; six-month period for claims against union)
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court 1976) (§301 permits individual employee suits against employer)
- Lukens Steel Co., Div. of Lukens, Inc. v. United Steelworkers, 969 F.2d 1468 (3d Cir. 1992) (some last-chance agreements bifurcate guilt and penalty, allowing grievance of the former)