Price v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 145
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Price, a WMATA bus operator, was terminated for failing to disclose a felony conviction and for a passenger harassment complaint that was ultimately cleared.
- Price’s Union voted on August 6, 2008 not to arbitrate his grievance after learning of the felony.
- Price filed a complaint November 7, 2008 and the current case reiterates largely the same claims filed December 10, 2009.
- The trial court dismissed the WMATA-related claims as time-barred under NLRA §10(b)’s six-month period and granted summary judgment for the Union defendants.
- The court applied NLRA DelCostello limitations to a hybrid CBA/fair representation claim against WMATA and Local 689, and Price appeals the rulings.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding the six-month limitations period applies and there was no tolling or viable §1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the six-month NLRA limitations apply to hybrid CBA/fair representation claims against WMATA and the Union | Price argues three-year state limitations apply since WMATA is a political subdivision | WMATA/Union rely on DelCostello six-month period borrowing from NLRA §10(b) | Six-month NLRA-based period applies |
| Whether WMATA’s status as a political subdivision defeats NLRA applicability | WMATA is outside NLRA employer definition and not subject to NLRA | Compact ties NLRA employee definition to bargaining partners; interdependent claims apply NLRA law | NLRA framework applied due to Compact and interdependent hybrid claims |
| Whether tolling occurred due to prior dismissal of a related complaint | Earlier dismissal tolled the limitations period | Dismissal without prejudice did not toll the period | No tolling; limitations ran by Aug. 6, 2008; action filed after Feb. 5, 2009 was timely (or rather time-barred) for hybrid claim |
| Whether §1983 due process claims were properly pleaded and controlled the limitations period | Constitutional due process claims existence requires three-year §1983 period | Record shows no §1983 claim; arguments recast as CBA/fair representation breach | §1983 claims rejected; properly framed as NLRA hybrid claim |
| Whether the complaint adequately alleged a constitutional rights deprivation or due process violation | WMATA failed to notify, investigate, and provide a hearing | Allegations are recast as CBA/fair representation claims; six-month period applies | Recasting defeats §1983 tolling; six-month period applies |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (hybrid CBA/fair representation suit limitations borrowed from NLRA §10(b))
- Jordan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 548 A.2d 792 (D.C.1988) (union's duty of fair representation applies; interdependence with employer claim)
- Flores v. Metro. Transit Auth., 964 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.App. 1998) (limits for hybrid claims applicable; distinguishing public entity context)