Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 334 F.3d 528, 538-39 (6th Cir.2003) (also noting that “[t]he wholly irrational standard is described in terms of extreme arbitrariness”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To show “discriminatory” conduct sufficient to establish a breach of the duty of fair representation, a plaintiff must present “substantial evidence of ... intentional, severe” discrimination that is “unrelated to legitimate union objectives.” Amalgamated Ass’n of Street Elec. Ry , 457 (2d Cir.1979) (noting that “it was almost inevitable that the union’s drawing of a line would hurt someone” and “although it is unfortunate that ... the ultimate harm fell on appellants, drawing the line elsewhere would ... have caused harm to others”); Forte v. Warehouse Employees Local 169, 2000 WL 377698, *3 (E.D.Pa.) (<HOLDING>); see also Ratkosky, supra, 843 F.2d at 878-79 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sixmonth limitations period established in delcostello applies to a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation brought only against a union (B) holding that sixmonth duty of fair representation statute of limitations applicable to claim alleging breach of union contract (C) holding that union did not breach its duty of fair representation when it accepted a contract that provided severance pay for some active workers but not for laid off workers who were recalled (D) holding that unions interpretation of a contractual provision necessarily favorfing some workers over others did not violate the duty of fair representation (E) holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract
Output (English): holding that unions interpretation of a contractual provision necessarily favorfing some workers over others did not violate the duty of fair representation