6th Dismisses DFR Case On The Basis of Statute of Limitations

Sometimes it is important to bring to readers attention cases involving basic principals of law because such cases are common. Coe v. Cleo, ___F.3d___(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2008), is one such case. The court dismissed plaintiffs DFR allegations as time barred as against the union. In so doing, the court did a nice job in summarizing the applicable law.

The merits of the case involved the union's refusal to arbitrate and the legal issue was when did the plaintiff learn of the unions decision. The date was important because that is when the 6 month statute of limitations clock started to tick. The court reasoned in part:
In our opinion, no reasonable jury could conclude other than that Cole should reasonably
have discovered that the union had abandoned his claim sometime during the months of January and February 2005, as his phone calls were continuously ignored. It was during this period that his § 301 hybrid action accrued. Because such an action is subject to a six-month statute of limitation and Cole’s complaint was not filed until more than six months after accrual of his claim, the hybrid action was properly held to be time-barred. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment in this respect.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein