D istri ct Ju d g e Je d S
. R ak o ff o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istrict C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern * D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 10-0035 -cv J o ne s v . S EI

UL o ca l119 9 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1, 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R IN A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s for the S econd C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 8 dayof Sept ember , tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF, * D is tr i ct Judge
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- R U F U S J O N E S , P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 10- 0035- cv S EI U LOCAL 1 1 9 9 , UNI VERS I TY OF ROCHES TE R, D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - - - -- FO R A PPE L L A N T : R ufus J ones , pr o s e, R oches t er , N ew Y or k. FOR APPELLEE S: M i chae l T
. H ar ren , C h am ber l ai n D ’ A m anda O ppenhei m er & G r eenf i el d L L P, R oches t er , N ew Y o rk , f orD ef endant

-Appel l ee SEI U

Local1199
.2 Li nd a T. Pr e s t e ga a r d, Phi l l i ps Ly t l e LLP, R o c h e s te r, N e w Y o rk , f orD ef endant

-Appel l ee U ni ver s i t y of R oches t er . A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (C h a rl e s J . S ir a g u s a , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D th a t th e D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is A F F IR M E D
. Pr o s e pl ai nt i ff R ufus J ones appea l s fr om an aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof d e f e n d a n ts S E IU L o c a l 1 1 9 9 a n d th e U n iv e rsity o f R o c h e ste r o n h is h yb rid § 3 0 1 /d u tyo f f a ir
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c l a i ms b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o th e La b o r M a n a g e me n t Re l a t i o n s Ac t , 2 9 U. S
. C. § 185, and the N at ion al L ab o r R el at i ons A ct , §§ 29 U
. S. C
. 151- 59. W e r evi ew a gr antof
s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng the fa ct s i n the l i ght m os t favor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng p a r ty . S e e Ha v e y v . Ho me b o u n d M o r t g . , I n c . , 5 4 7 F
. 3 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. Wh i l e we
w ill n o t u p h o ld a n a w a rd o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts if

th e e v id e n c e is
s uffi ci entt o perm i ta r eas onabl e j uryt o fi nd forJ o n es, h e m u st p oi ntt o m or e than a “s ci nt i l l a” of

s uppor t i n g evi dence t o defe ats um m aryj udgm ent . I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks
om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o A nder s on v. L i berty L obby , I nc. , 477 U
. S. 242, 252 ( 1986)
. I n appl y i ng thes e p ri n ciples to this a p p ea l, w e a ssu m e the p arti es’ f am il iari tyw ith the f

ac ts an d the re co rd of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. W e af firm for s ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s t at ed i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s thor ough and
w el l
- r eas oned opi ni on. See Jones v. SE I U L ocal 1199, N o. 08 C i v. 6179, 2009 W L 51718823

(W
. D
. N
. Y
. D ec . 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ). A s the d istri ct co u rtn o ted, Jo n es’s c lai m ch all en g ing h is fail u re t o r ece i ve a pa yi ncr eas e i s barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , s ee Car r i on v. E n ter . A ss ’n , 2 2 7 F .3 d 2 9 , 3 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (o b se rv in g th a t h yb rid § 3 0 1 /d u tyo f f a ir
re p re se n tatio n c laim is s u b je c t to six -m o n th sta tu te o f lim itatio n s), a n d h is d u tyo f f a ir
r epr es ent ati o n cl ai m cannots ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm entbeca us e he ha s fai l ed t o adduce
e v id e n c e su f

f icie n t to p e rm it a ra tio n a l f a c tf in d e r to c o n c lu d e th a t S E IU ’s r e f u sa l to a rb itrate hi s t erm i nat i on of em pl oym ent w as “arbi tr ary , di s cr i m i nat ory , ori n bad fa i th. ” M ar quez v. Scr een A ct or s G ui l d, I nc. , 525 U
. S. 33, 44 ( 1998) ; acc or d S an o zk y v . Int ’ l A s s ’ n of M a c h in ists & A e ro sp a c e W o rk e rs, 41 5 F .3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); se e a lso A ir L in e P ilo ts A ss ’n , In t’l v . O ’N e ill , 4 9 9 U .S . 6 5 , 6 7 (1 9 9 1 ) (“ [ A ] u n io n ’s a c tio n s a re a rb itrar yo n lyif , in li g h t of the f ac tual a n d le g a l lan d sca p e a t th e ti m e o f th e u n ion ’s ac ti o n s, the u n ion ’s behavi ori s s o farout s i de a w i de r ange of r eas onabl ene ss as to be i rr at i onal
. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t ted) )
. B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yconcl uded that S E IU w a s e n tit led to su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, it f o llo w s tha t th e U n iv e rsityw a s a lso e n tit led to
s um m aryj udgm ent . See Sanozkyv. I nt ’ l A s s ’ n of M achi ni s t s & A er os pace W or ker s , 415 F. 3d at282 ( not i ng thatt o pr evai l on hybr i d § 301/ dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on cl ai m , pl ai nt i ff
m us t demonstr at e both that empl oy er br eac hed col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementan d that
u n ion b rea ch ed d u tyo f f air repre sen tat ion ). W e have cons i der ed J ones ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatt hey
ar e w i thout m er i t . For the for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ct court ’ s D ece m ber23,4

2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t.
FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt