Kalyanaram v. American Ass'n of University Professors at the New York Institute of Technology, Inc.
742 F.3d 42
2d Cir.2014Background
- Kalyanaram, a NYIT professor and union member, was terminated after student complaints; he pursued grievance arbitration under the CBA.
- Arbitrator issued an Interim Award (Aug 13, 2009) and then a "Final Award" on October 13, 2009 terminating Kalyanaram but granting certain relief (paid research leave, neutral references); arbitrator retained limited jurisdiction to implement the award.
- Kalyanaram filed a CPLR § 7511 petition in New York state court to vacate the Final Award; the petition was denied (June 2, 2010) and the Appellate Division affirmed (Dec 2, 2010); leave to appeal to NY Court of Appeals was denied.
- While the state court proceedings were pending, arbitrator issued supplemental orders (2010–2011) addressing implementation details (references, partial salary).
- Kalyanaram sued the Union in federal court (Sept 7, 2010) for breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR); the district court dismissed the DFR claim as time-barred; Kalyanaram appealed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the six‑month limitations period for a DFR claim accrue? | Accrual did not occur until state court denied vacatur/confirmed award because CBA made awards final "subject to appeal." | Accrual occurred when the arbitrator issued the Final Award (Oct 13, 2009); "subject to appeal" does not delay finality for accrual. | Accrual occurred on issuance of the Final Award. |
| Does pending state‑court litigation to vacate/confirm an arbitration award toll the six‑month limitations period for a DFR claim? | State proceedings tolled the limitations period until judicial confirmation/vacatur resolved. | State proceedings are a parallel, optional avenue and do not equitably toll the federal limitations period. | No tolling; state action did not toll the six‑month period. |
| Do subsequent supplemental or interim arbitral orders defeat finality of the Final Award for accrual purposes? | Later supplemental awards show the arbitration was not final, so accrual occurred later. | Supplemental orders merely implemented the Final Award and did not change its finality. | Supplemental awards did not change finality; accrual remained at the Final Award. |
| Applicable tolling law: federal or state? | (Implied) State tolling rules should apply because petition filed in state court. | Federal limitations and tolling principles govern because DelCostello borrows a federal (NLRA §10(b)) limitations period. | Federal tolling rules apply; state tolling is inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (DFR claims borrow §10(b) six‑month limitations period)
- Cohen v. Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 68 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1995) (DFR accrual no later than when plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach)
- Ghartey v. St. John’s Queens Hosp., 869 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1989) (employee may rely on union during hearing; accrual not before arbitral award)
- Santos v. Dist. Council of N.Y.C. & Vicinity, 619 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1980) (DFR claim accrues on date of award where grievance concerns arbitration conduct)
- Kolomick v. United Steelworkers of Am., District 8, AFL-CIO, 762 F.2d 354 (4th Cir. 1985) (parallel remedies do not toll limitations period)
- Trent v. Bolger, 837 F.2d 657 (4th Cir. 1988) (tolling where alternate forum was exclusive by CBA/statute and appealed as part of single remedial scheme)
- Edwards v. Int’l Union, UPGWA, 46 F.3d 1047 (10th Cir. 1995) (accrual delayed where union’s conduct induced belief further arbitration or judicial remedy would be pursued)
- Hester v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, 818 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1987) (internal union remedies may delay accrual when exhaustion is required)
- Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Int’l Union, UPGWA & Local 537, 47 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 1995) (retention of jurisdiction to calculate details does not negate finality of award)
- Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1980) (arbitration award is "final" when intended as complete determination of all submitted claims)