Jara v. Standard Parking, 701 F. App'x 733

Plaintiff Abdullahi Jara, an African‑American Muslim from Ethiopia, worked for Standard Parking and was represented by Teamsters Local 455; he alleged underpayment, denial of overtime, discipline, and termination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion, and alleged union failure to pursue grievances for the same reasons.
Jara was disciplined and ultimately terminated after an incident in May 2014 involving $200 he took briefly from a register; the customer returned the money and Standard fired him for failing to follow a supervisor’s order.
Jara filed grievances with the Union that were withdrawn; he filed untimely EEOC charges, which the EEOC did not process for timeliness reasons.
He sued Standard and the Union in 2015 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discrimination and retaliation; the district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed dismissal de novo, construed pro se pleadings liberally, and affirmed dismissal for multiple independent reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Title VII charge / equitable tolling	Jara conceded he missed the 300‑day filing window but argued equitable tolling because he was unaware of the deadline	Defendants argued Title VII requires timely EEOC charge and Jara bears burden of timeliness; no grounds for tolling	Court affirmed dismissal of Title VII claim; equitable tolling not shown (no deception or extraordinary prevention)
§ 1981 discrimination claim	Jara alleged adverse employment actions were race‑based	Defendants argued complaint lacked factual allegations showing discriminatory intent or circumstantial evidence	Court held allegations conclusory; plaintiff failed to plead facts giving rise to inference of discrimination; § 1981 discrimination dismissed
§ 1981 retaliation claim	Jara asserted retaliation for complaining about discrimination	Defendants argued Jara did not plead protected opposition to discrimination	Court held retaliation claim failed because plaintiff did not allege facts showing protected opposition
Hybrid §301 / duty‑of‑fair‑representation claim	Jara implied union breached duties by withdrawing grievances and employer violated collective bargaining agreement	Defendants argued complaints were conclusory and lacked facts showing union acted discriminatorily, dishonestly, or perfunctorily or that employer breached the CBA	Court found allegations too general/conclusory to plead the three elements of a hybrid §301 claim; dismissed

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (Title VII 300‑day charge requirement)
Gad v. Kan. State Univ., 787 F.3d 1032 (plaintiff bears burden to show EEOC timeliness)
Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160 (equitable tolling requires deception or extraordinary prevention)
Webb v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 155 F.3d 1230 (elements of hybrid §301/duty‑of‑fair‑representation claim)
Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497 (examples of circumstantial evidence that can support inference of discriminatory termination)
Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))