Tim Haskin v. US Airways
689 F. App'x 515
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tim Haskin, pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment in an employment lawsuit asserting Title VII and Railway Labor Act claims against his union and airlines.
- Haskin brought a hybrid claim alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation and the airline breached the collective-bargaining agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the duty of fair representation claim based on a six‑month statute of limitations bar.
- The district court dismissed Haskin’s breach of contract claim against US Airways for lack of jurisdiction because jurisdiction depended on a triable hybrid claim against the union.
- The district court dismissed Haskin’s Title VII claims without leave to amend as futile; Haskin had previously dismissed other claims and failed to replead some in a subsequent complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of duty of fair representation claim | Haskin argued his claim was timely | Defendants argued six‑month limitations had run after union’s grievance period expired | Dismissal affirmed: six‑month rule applies; claim untimely |
| Jurisdiction over breach of contract claim vs. US Airways | Haskin sought adjudication of contractual claim | US Airways argued court lacked jurisdiction absent a triable union claim | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Dismissal of Title VII claims without leave to amend | Haskin sought leave to amend Title VII claims | Defendants argued amendment would be futile; prior amendment history noted | Dismissal without leave affirmed as amendment would be futile |
| Requirement to order mediation before summary judgment | Haskin contended court had to order mediation first | Defendants argued no mandatory mediation requirement | Rejected: no mandatory mediation required; contention meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and waiver for voluntarily dismissed claims not repleaded)
- Lea v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 903 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1990) (six‑month statute of limitations applies to hybrid Railway Labor Act claims)
- Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1986) (limitations period for duty of fair representation begins when employee knows or should know of the breach)
- Peters v. Burlington N. R.R., 931 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal jurisdiction over contractual claims in hybrid suits depends on a triable claim against the union)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s broad discretion to deny subsequent amendments after leave to amend)