645 F. App'x 519
7th Cir.2016Background
- Fuqua, a 49-year-old senior full-time mail handler at the O’Hare Air Mail Center, faced reassignment after the facility closure and planned to bid on nearer Gary, Indiana positions; those positions were removed from the posted list before he bid.
- He did not bid and was reassigned to Kansas City, directed to report on August 14, 2010; he did not report and was fired March 26, 2011 for failure to appear.
- Fuqua alleges the Postal Service gave more favorable transfers to junior, part-time flexible employees (age discrimination under the ADEA) and that the Postal Service breached the collective bargaining agreement while his union failed to grieve (a hybrid §1208(b) claim).
- Fuqua repeatedly asked his local union to file grievances between May and August 2010; the union never filed; he filed suit in August 2012 after multiple amended complaints.
- The district court dismissed the hybrid §1208(b) claims as time-barred (applying a six-month limitations period) but allowed the ADEA claim to proceed; it later granted summary judgment to the Postal Service on the ADEA claim and denied Fuqua’s mandamus request concerning a clerk-signed default order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of hybrid §1208(b) claim (limitations period) | Fuqua: Postal Service’s "willful, blatant, egregious" breach warrants an extended 3-year limitations remedy | Postal Service: §1208(b) claims borrow §301 law, so a 6-month limitations period applies and his claims accrued earlier | Court: 6-month period applies; Fuqua’s claims were untimely and not excused or extended |
| Prima facie ADEA discriminatory termination | Fuqua: Termination followed discriminatory reassignment and refusal to allow proper bidding; treated less favorably due to age | Postal Service: Fuqua admitted he never reported to Kansas City, so he failed to meet legitimate job expectations | Court: No prima facie termination case under indirect method because Fuqua did not show he met job expectations |
| Prima facie ADEA discriminatory transfer (comparators) | Fuqua: Junior part-time flex employees received preferable Chicago-area transfers and are proper comparators | Postal Service: Comparators not similarly situated; Fuqua offered no evidence of their ages | Court: Fuqua failed to identify similarly situated, substantially younger comparators; cannot raise new facts on appeal; prima facie not established |
| Validity of default judgment/mandamus re: national union | Fuqua: Clerk signed default order; he sought mandamus to compel entry against national union | Defendants/District Court: National union was not a defendant in operative complaints; clerk’s order was signed in error and set aside | Court: Denied mandamus; default order void because national union was not a party to the operative pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Truhlar v. U.S. Postal Serv., 600 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2010) (Postal Reorganization Act suits are governed by §301 law)
- Gibson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 380 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2004) (applying §301 analog to postal suits)
- Trent v. Bolger, 837 F.2d 657 (4th Cir. 1988) (same legal analogy)
- Abernathy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 740 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1984) (same legal analogy)
- Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum Int’l, LLC, 766 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2014) (limitations accrual when no further grievance action will be taken)
- Chapple v. Nat’l Starch & Chem. Co., 178 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 1999) (accrual rule for §301-based claims)
- Packer v. Trustees of Ind. Univ. Sch. of Med., 800 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (court will not consider new factual assertions raised for first time on appeal)
- Senske v. Sybase, Inc., 588 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2009) (comparator must be sufficiently similar to plaintiff)
- Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 526 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2008) (seniority differences affect comparator similarity)
- Ilhardt v. Sara Lee Corp., 118 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1997) (full-time and part-time employees generally not similarly situated)
- Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004) (an amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings for purposes of who is a party)