Ryan Harter v. USPS, 21-35129

Harter, a postal employee, was interviewed after a trip to California; interviewer Dokken recorded Harter’s answer as "flew down and drove back." Union representative Ray recorded "Fly down drove back." Harter later swore he had said "I drove back."
After the interview, Dokken asked Ray whether she heard Harter say he drove back; Ray answered yes. Harter alleges Ray acted arbitrarily by confirming what she heard to Dokken.
At the Informal Step A meeting, Dokken mentioned the possibility of a settlement without a "last chance" provision but offered only a reduction to a 14-day suspension with a last-chance condition; Ray did not relay the potential no-last-chance possibility to branch president Pardick.
At Formal Step A, a more favorable offer (without a last-chance) was actually extended but Pardick, who had authority, rejected it. Harter contends Ray’s failure to relay the possibility prejudiced him.
The district court granted summary judgment for the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) on Harter’s duty-of-fair-representation (DFR) claim and dismissed a related contract claim against USPS. Harter appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Ray’s conduct was not arbitrary and Harter failed to show prejudice from Ray’s actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ray’s confirmation to Dokken that Harter said he "drove back" breached the union’s duty by being arbitrary	Ray acted arbitrarily by confirming her firsthand perception to the supervisor, harming Harter	Ray simply reported what she heard; union conduct was not irrational and receives deference	Court: Not arbitrary; confirmation of firsthand observation is not irrational and Harter failed to show prejudice
Whether Ray’s failure to report Dokken’s mention of a potential offer without a "last chance" breached the duty	Ray should have informed Pardick of the possible no-last-chance offer; omission prejudiced Harter	The better offer without a last-chance was actually made later and Pardick (with authority) rejected it; no prejudice from Ray’s omission	Court: No prejudice shown; no DFR breach on this theory

Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (arbitrary standard: conduct is arbitrary only if "so far outside a wide range of reasonableness" as to be irrational)
Wellman v. Writers Guild of Am., W., Inc., 146 F.3d 666 (distinguishes ministerial vs. discretionary union conduct and applicable DFR standards)
Marino v. Writers Guild of Am., E., Inc., 992 F.2d 1480 (same framework for ministerial vs. judgment conduct)
Demetris v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 862 F.3d 799 (plaintiff bears burden to prove arbitrariness or bad faith)
Beck v. United Food & Com. Workers Union, 506 F.3d 874 (burden principles in DFR claims)
McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170 (plaintiff must show that but for union conduct the arbitration outcome would differ)
R.W. Beck & Assocs. v. City & Borough of Sitka, 27 F.3d 1475 (speculative assertions are insufficient to defeat summary judgment)