Hardine v. Office & Professional Employees International Union
475 F. App'x 103
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hardine appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in her FEHA claim against OPEIU.
- The district court held the state-law claim preempted under LMRA § 301 as inextricably intertwined with the labor contract.
- Hardine’s sole claim alleged the union failed to provide fair, proper, and adequate representation in her claims against her employer.
- The district court found the claim preempted because it rests on rights created by the collective bargaining agreement.
- The court also deemed the claim untimely under 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (six-month limitations) with accrual in June 2007 and suit filed March 2009.
- Hardine argued for equitable tolling based on good-faith efforts to resolve the claim with DFEH, which the court rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the FEHA claim preempted by LMRA § 301? | Hardine argues the claim concerns union duties, not CBA terms. | OPEIU contends the claim is founded on rights under the CBA and thus preempted. | Preempted under § 301 as inextricably intertwined with labor contract terms. |
| Is Hardine’s claim timely under § 160(b)? | Not explicitly stated; claim relation to union is timely within limitations. | Claim accrued in June 2007; suit filed March 2009 is untimely. | Untimely under six-month statute of limitations. |
| Does equitable tolling apply? | Argues tolling due to good-faith DFEH efforts. | Even accepting tolling date, statute had run before suit. | Equitable tolling not recognized; tolling rejected. |
| Did the district court have jurisdiction/removal authority over the case? | N/A in opinion for this precise issue. | N/A in opinion for this precise issue. | Affirmed removal and preemption rulings (implied). |
Key Cases Cited
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (§301 preemption when claim is intertwined with labor contract)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (federal preemption governs preemption of state-law claims by federal law)
- Adkins v. Mireles, 526 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008) (duty of fair representation preempts state-law claims)
- Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of §301 preemption; en banc)
- Stallcop v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 820 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1987) (jurisdictional support for removal when duty of fair representation is at issue)