Keith Saunders v. Ford Motor Co., 879 F.3d 742

Saunders worked for Ford, was seriously injured on the job (2001), and thereafter had permanent medical restrictions limiting use of his right arm.
The Ford–UAW collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contains a medical-placement procedure allowing medically restricted workers to be placed in jobs (sometimes displacing up to two years of seniority) and a multi-stage grievance/arbitration process that generally bars litigation of CBA disputes.
Saunders was placed on No-Work-Available (NWA) status multiple times between 2012–2014; he filed at least two plant grievances (April 2013 and December 2013), two EEOC charges, and sought to reopen his workers’ compensation claim in July 2013 (rejected a $100,000 settlement offer).
Saunders sued Ford (and supervisors) in Kentucky state court alleging disability discrimination, retaliation (EEOC, workers’ compensation, and grievances), and other state-law claims; Ford removed based on § 301 LMRA preemption and the district court recharacterized the state claims as § 301 (hybrid) claims where applicable.
The district court granted summary judgment to Ford: (1) Saunders failed to show breach by the union of the duty of fair representation on the April 2013 grievance; (2) the December 2013 grievance-based § 301 claim was time-barred; and (3) the workers’ compensation retaliation claim failed because no adverse action or pretext was shown as to placement on NWA or the settlement offer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UAW breached duty of fair representation re: April 2013 grievance	UAW failed to fully pursue grievance and only made a token effort	UAW diligently pursued grievance through second stage and appealed to Review Board; no arbitrary/bad-faith conduct	No breach; summary judgment for Ford affirmed
Whether December 2013 grievance § 301 claim is timely	Grievance preserved by later union action (May 2014); claim relates to December conduct	Claim accrued when union declined to pursue within CBA window (Dec 2013); six-month limitations expired before suit	Time-barred; summary judgment affirmed
Whether plaintiff had to exhaust grievance/arbitration before § 301 suit	Saunders relied on CBA exhaustion rules; court limited § 301 review to the two grievances	§ 301 hybrid suits are confined to issues raised in exhausted grievance procedure	Court properly confined review; exhaustion requirement enforced
Whether Ford retaliated (Ky. Rev. Stat. §342.197) by offering settlement or placing Saunders on NWA after reopening workers’ comp claim	Reopening claim prompted $100,000 settlement demand and later NWA placement — both retaliatory	Settlement offer not an adverse employment action; NWA placement supported by medical findings and non-retaliatory procedures	No adverse action from rejected settlement; NWA placement had legitimate nonretaliatory basis and no pretext shown; summary judgment affirmed

DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (recognized hybrid § 301 suits against employer and union and duty of fair representation doctrine)
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (union breaches duty of fair representation only if conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
Clayton v. UAW, 451 U.S. 679 (1981) (employee must attempt to exhaust exclusive grievance/arbitration procedures before maintaining § 301 suit)
Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, 371 U.S. 195 (1962) (employees as well as unions may initiate § 301 suits)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden on moving party)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
Garrish v. UAW, 417 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2005) (six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301 suits)
Wilson v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 83 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 1996) (accrual rules for hybrid claims when union abandons the claim)