577 F. App'x 52
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Szymanski, a member of Local 3 (IBEW), sued Local 3 and the Joint Industry Board (JIB) for breach of the duty of fair representation arising from alleged preferential job referrals at a union hiring hall.
- Szymanski alleges the Union passed him over for referrals and referred other members who had been unemployed for shorter periods, identifying five specific members as examples.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Szymanski’s claims were time-barred by the six‑month statute of limitations for DFR (duty of fair representation) claims under DelCostello.
- The District Court granted summary judgment, concluding Szymanski’s claims were untimely, based on its view of when he learned of the challenged referrals.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed de novo, focusing on when the claims accrued (discrete vs. continuing violations) and whether defendants met their burden to prove the statute-of-limitations defense.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that defendants failed to carry their burden at summary judgment because genuine disputes existed about when Szymanski discovered at least one or more of the allegedly wrongful referrals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/timeliness: when did the six‑month period start? | Szymanski contends some discoveries occurred within six months, so claims timely (and continuing-violation theory may apply). | Defendants argue all relevant discoveries occurred outside six months, rendering claims untimely. | Vacated/remanded: unresolved factual disputes about discovery prevent summary judgment for defendants. |
| Continuing violation vs. discrete acts | Szymanski argues each referral can be viewed as part of a continuing pattern or discrete actionable acts; if continuing, limitations may run from last act. | Defendants treat each referral as discrete, so limitations run from each discovery earlier. | Court did not decide which theory governs; found either way summary judgment inappropriate on record. |
| Burden of proof for statute-of-limitations affirmative defense | Szymanski posits defendants must prove accrual timing; he need not negate defense at summary judgment. | Defendants assumed the record showed accrual outside the limitations period. | Held for Szymanski: district court improperly shifted burden; defendants failed to make prima facie showing to warrant summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (statute of limitations for DFR claims is six months)
- Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345 (continuing violation tolling may delay accrual until last discriminatory act)
- Carrion v. Enter. Ass’n, Metal Trades Branch Local Union 638, 227 F.3d 29 (DFR claim accrues when plaintiff knew or should have known of breach)
- Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Overall v. Estate of Klotz, 52 F.3d 398 (defendant bears burden to prove statute-of-limitations affirmative defense)