Mayo v. Board of Education of Prince George's County
713 F.3d 735
4th Cir.2013Background
- CBA covers all bargaining-unit employees for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010; temporary employees are excluded from the unit.
- Arbitrator held that the Board violated Article 7, §17 by using substitutes/temps to perform bargaining-unit work and limited remedies to specified periods.
- Settlement followed directing backpay and a minimum hiring of additional full-time bargaining-unit staff.
- Five temporary employees filed suit in Maryland state court seeking declaration of the arbitration award’s validity and other relief, naming the Board, its chair, and the Union as defendants.
- The School Board removed to federal court asserting Union consent to removal; Temporary Employees opposed removal on grounds of Union’s lack of timely consent.
- District court dismissed counts; Temporary Employees appealed and sought reconsideration which the district court struck; appellate panel affirmed removal, dismissal, and strike order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal proper despite Union’s consent issues? | Temporary Employees argue Union did not timely consent in writing. | Union consent conveyed via attorney’s filing suffices. | Removal effective; Union adequately consented. |
| Did the Union owe a duty of fair representation to temps? | Union breached by misleading temps about arbitration and accepting a payoff. | No duty owed or misreading of arbitration; not plausibly pled. | Count II dismissed; no plausible F.R. claim. |
| Are temps third-party beneficiaries of the CBA? | Temps should receive CBA benefits as intended beneficiaries. | Temps are explicitly excluded from the CBA’s coverage. | Count III dismissed; no third-party-beneficiary status. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in striking reconsideration? | Motion for reconsideration was timely or justified by new grounds. | Motion untimely and lacking new viable grounds. | Count IV on reconsideration affirmed; no abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (unanimity required for removal; consent of all defendants)
- Wis. Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (1998) (removal requires consent of all defendants)
- Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997) (defendants may consent via one signed notice on behalf of all)
- Harper v. AutoAlliance Int’l, Inc., 392 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2004) (unanimity satisfied by one notice signed by an attorney for a defendant)
- Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1988) (timely written consent from each served defendant necessary; form varies)
- Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (consent by one defendant can suffice when signed by attorney of record)