Bernard v. Delivery Drivers
District Court, D. Colorado
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CARRIGAN, District Judge.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment contending that the plaintiff’s claims are ba,rred by 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). In making this argument, the defendants rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to apply § 160(b) to fair representation claims. See Del Costello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).
Plaintiff’s claims here are not fair representation claims, however, since they allege violations of his rights under 29 U.S.C. § 411. Congress has created a claim for relief in 29…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Gary Garcia v. Richard Wilson and Martin VigilCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984
3Cited by7 opinions
- Local Union 1397, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio Ronald Weisen Thomas Jugan and Thomas Katona v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-CioCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Arthur Doty v. Richard SewallCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Clyde L. Davis, Jr., an Individual v. United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union Local 95 of Laborers' International UnionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Testa v. GallagherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.