2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-30-2004 

# N a ch t sheim v

. C on t Airlines P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2775

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" N a ch tsheim v

. C on t Airl ine s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 308. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/308NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2775

DAN NAC HT SH EI M, Appellant
v. CONTI NENTAL AI RLI NES; INT ERNATI ONAL ASS OCI ATI ON OF MACHINIS TS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS

ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 01-cv- 04482) District Cou rt Judge: H onorab le Faith S. H ochbe rg
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 15, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, A M BR O, a nd F ISH ER , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: September 30, 2004 )

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

PER CU RIA M : Be caus e w e w r i t e f

or t he par t i es on l y , we do no t se t ou t t he fa ct s o f t hi s c as e. We conclude that the Distri ct Court l acked subje ct matter jurisdi ction to consider Na chtsh eim’s contra ct claim und er the R ailwa y Labo r Ac t, and w e vac ate tha t part of its order gr anting Continenta l Airl ines, Inc. ( Continent al) s ummary judgment . In al l other
re spe ct s, we af

fi rm. I. A. Na chtsh eim c once des th at a six-m onth statute o f limitatio ns ap plies to h is claim against the Internati onal Associ ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ( the Union) for breach of

its duty of fair represent ation. Br. of Appell ant at 17. Such a cl aim accrues “when the plai ntiff

recei ves noti ce that

the union wil l procee d no further with the grievanc e.” Vad ino v. A V aley Eng’rs , 903 F.2d 253, 260 (3d Cir. 1990) (i nternal quotati on marks omitted). Nacht sheim plai nly recei ved such noti ce in the Union’s l ette r of N ovem ber 2 4, 200 0, w hich s tated th at “no future appe al will b e ma de” a nd th at “this matte r will be remo ved f rom the S ystem B oard of A djustm ent an d con sidere d clos ed in the Dist rict file s.” Nachts heim has not argued that his re ceipt

of the l ette r was delay ed, and even assuming i t arrived as l ate as December 15 of t hat y ear, he would have been obligated to bri ng suit

no late r than J une 15, 2001. His origi nal complai nt was thus untimely wh en filed on Septem ber 21, 20 01, and the Union was en titled to summa ry1 While the Dis tri ct Court c orrectly determi ned that Nachtsheim’s clai m accrued when he received t

he November 24 letter, nei ther Nacht sheim’s c omplaint nor the Union’s answer ave rred this or any other date as the time of accrua l. Accordi ngly , the Distri ct Court’ s decis ion to di smiss Nachts heim’s compl aint rested on “matters outsi de the ple ading . . . presented to and not excl uded by t he court, ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) , and the Union’s motion shoul d have been “treated as one for summaryjudgment and di sposed of as provi ded in Rule 56. ” Id. But since i t appear s from the par ties ’ bri efs on the motion that t hey had a“reasonabl e opportuni ty to pres ent al l material made per tinent to such a motion byRule 56,” id. , and si nce no one press es the poi nt on appeal , we conclude t hat the p artie s ha d im plied not ice o f the con ver sion and that a ny trial e rror w as h arm less. See Ro se v. B artle , 871 F.2d 331, 340 -42 (3d C ir. 1989). 3 judg men t. 1 B. Nach tsheim also arg ues that the D istrict Court erred in gran ting Con tinental’s
mo tion fo r sum mary jud gm ent. Su mm ary judgm ent m ay be gra nted if the m ovin g par ty establish es that “ there is n o gen uine iss ue as to any m aterial fa ct and that [it] is e ntitled to judg men t as a m atter of law.” Fed . R. C iv. P. 56 (c). A ll infere nces draw n fro m the facts subm itted to the Distric t Cou rt mus t be dra wn “in the light m ost fav orab le to the party opposing the motion. ” Goodman v. Mead Johnson & C o. , 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir. 1976). Applyi ng these principl es, we agree with the Dis tri ct Court t hat Conti nental was entit led to sum ma ry judg me nt o n N ach tshe im’s state law claim s fo r bre ach of c ont ract. Section 2 of

the Rail way Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S. C. § 151a, made appl icabl e to the nation’ s airlines by 45 U.S. C. § 181, pre empts st ate l aw governing “minor ” disput es betw een em plo yers an d em plo yees. See Ha wa iian A irlines, Inc . v. No rris , 512 U.S. 246,4

256 (1994) (c iti ng sources) . A disput e is minor if it involves “the i nterpr etation or applic ation of

existing labor

agreements ,” id. , wh ereas a majo r dispu te invo lves “r ights and obligations that e xist independent

of the CBA.” Id. at 260 . It is tautolo gical th at a contrac t ri ght cannot

be independent

of a contr act and that det ermining whether Continent al brea ched the CBA and the covenant of good faith and fair

deali ng impli ed therei n will i nvolve “i nterpr etation and appl ication” of the CBA. Nachtsheim’s st ate l aw contrac t claims were thus “minor” di sputes and were preempted. Nachtsheim’s federal

contrac t claim present s a thornier i ssue. He brought the clai m under secti on 301 of the Labor Management Relat ions Act, but that

Act does not app ly to em plo yers su bjec t to th e R LA
. See 29 U .S.C. § 152 (2). B y a 1936 ame ndm ent, 45 U .S.C. § § 18 1-18 5, the c over age o f the R LA wa s exten ded, w ith min or ex ceptio ns, to “every common carrier by air engaged in interstat e or foreign commerce.” Becau se Continent al is a “common carrie r by air, ” it i s subjec t to t he RLA, not the Labor M anag eme nt Re lations A ct. Und er the RL A, fede ral courts gene rally do not have jurisdiction o ver “min or” disput es (as de fined above) , which must be litigate d before speci al arbi tralor adm inistr ative tribu nals
. See Childs v. Pa. Fed’n Bhd. of Maint. Way Employ ees , 831 F.2d 429, 433 ( 3d Cir. 1987) . Federaljuri sdiction li es for suc h disput es in onl y four excepti onal si tuati ons: (1) when “the employ er repudi ates t he private grievance machinery ”; (2) when “resort to admini strative remedies would be futile” ; (3) when “the5

employ er i s jo inedin a DFR cl aim aga ins t the uni on”; or (4 ) when “t he uni on’s DFR breach caus es the empl oyee to lose t he right to pres ent his or her grievance. ” Miklavic v. USAir Inc. , 21 F.3d 5 51, 555 (3 d Cir. 199 4). The first two excepti ons clearly do not apply here. The t

hird se ems promisi ng at firs t blus h, but we have hel d that i t appli es onlywhen the plai ntiff alle ges fact s “ty ing the employe r to t

he events c omplained of, ” such as “col lusi on or some simi lar nexus between the u nio n an d th e em plo yer,” ra ther than “se par ate a nd d istinc t” cla ims
. Masy v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc. , 790 F.2d 322, 327 (3d Cir. 1986). Nachts heim all eges that Co ntinen tal term inated him w ithout c ause and th at his U nion failed to pro vide h im w ith competent and e ffecti ve repres entation. Thes e are separate a nd distinct c laims, and Nachtsheim has not

adduced any evidence of “c ollus ion or some si milar ne xus” that
wo uld w arrant jo ining h is emp loyer in his f edera l suit. The fourth and fi nal exception is also unavai ling. This Court took pains i n Childs to emphasiz e that

the fourt h excepti on “is a nar

row one and cannot be i nterpr eted as undermining t

he generalrule of e xclusi ve NRA B juris dicti on for minor di sputes. ” Childs , 831 F.2d at

441. The plai ntiff

must meet the “heavy burden” of showing t hat “the union’s breach of it s DFR precluded his recovery from the ra ilr oad, and that his reli ance on the union was r easonable .” Id. Na chtsh eim h as no t com e close to me eting th is standar d, even at

the summaryjudgment st age. He has nei ther di sputed t hat the Union had the power under

the CBA to decline to prose cute hi s clai m further, nor clai med that6

the Union’s repres entation was the s ine qua non t o proceedi ng further . Indeed, he acknowledges that “under the RLA an employee maybring a grievance t o his employ er or the NRAB on his own.” Br. of Appella nt at 17. In short , Nachtshei m has present ed no evidence t

hat he was “compell ed by t he acti ons of his uni on to turn to the f ederal courts .” Childs , 831 F.2d at

440. The District

Court thus lacked subj ect matter jurisdi ction ove r hi s c la im. We turn at l ast t o the grava men of Nachtsheim’s complaint , that Contine ntal terminated him becaus e of his age . Our analy sis i s confined to the indirect e vidence of discrimination Nachtshei m presented unde r the t hird pr ong of the McD onnell Dougla s test . As we explaine d in Fue ntes v . Persk ie , a pl ainti ff must do more than “show that t he employe r’s dec isi on was wrong or mistake n” to avoi d summary j udgment. 32 F. 3d 759, 765 (3d Cir. 1994). The pl ainti ff must adduce evi dence that the employ er’s pr offered
reason was a pretext

– that i s, “a pos t hoc fabrication.” Id. at 764 . A rea sona ble factfi nder may t

hen infer that “ the rea l moti vation i s the one t hat the plaint

iff has charged. ” Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. , 100 F.3d 1061, 10 69 (3d C ir. 1996). Nachtsheim’s evidence, which amounts to hi s own affidavit and crit icis m of the qualit y of Conti nental ’s inve sti gation, does not rise t o this level . He does not di spute t hat he was capture d on Continent al’s securi ty tape re moving a garment bag f rom a closet

at about the same time t

hat another employ ee’s bag went mi ssing. In fact , he i nsist s that the7

victi mized employ ee’s bag “l ooked just like hi s.” Br. of Appellant at 57. This evide nce actual ly tends t o show that anymistake by Continent al was innoce nt. I t cert ainly does not show “such weaknesses, implausibili ties , inc onsistencies, incohere ncies, or contr adictions in the e mp loyer’s pro ffere d legitim ate rea sons that a re ason able f actfin der co uld ratio nally find the m unworthy of credence.” Fuentes , 32 F.3d at 765. Nachtsheim al so offers a s evidence of Continent al’s discriminat ory motive a l ette r from Shirl ey Minn of Conti nental to Nachtshei m’s union l awyer, Jeff Oliver . The let ter reads i n part: “Despite y our asser tion t hat Dan did not

take someone el se’s bag, the fact that t his was his second care er (meani ng he is more mature and cre dible t han the aver age junior flight atte ndant) t

he evidence ove rwhelmingly supports the char ge of theft and being untr

uthful. ” App. II at

172. Although Nacht sheim protests t hat a triabl e issue exists a s to w hethe r M r. Olive r or M s. M inn o riginally bro ache d the s ubjec t of his maturity , any such is sue would be imm aterial . Regardless of who uttered these words, their syntax makes c lear that “maturity” was c onsidered , if anything, one of M r. Nachtsheim’s asset s, not a liabili ty . He was termi nated “[d] espit e” his maturity, not because of it. Becau se Nac htsheim h as failed to add uce evide nce that C ontinental’s reason for

dischar ging him was a pretext for unl awful discrimination, Continenta l was entitl ed to summary judgment on his state and federal antidi scrimination cl aims. III. W e ha ve c ons ider ed a ll of t he a ppe llant ’s arg um ents and see no b asis f or re ver sal.8

The judgment of the District Court is therefore a ffirmed, except that part of its order of M ay 8, 200 3, gran ting C ontine ntal sum mary jud gm ent on Na chtsh eim’s contra ct claim und er the R LA . Tha t part of the ord er is va cated , and th e ma tter is rem ande d w ith inst ructi ons to di smiss Nachts heim’s cl aim for l ack of subje ct matter jurisdi ction.9