FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J uly 16, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 70 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 21 7- CV-FTM -9 9- SPC LUIS JI MENEZ, in di vi du al ly, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us COLLIER TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 16 , 20 09 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Lui s J im en ez ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to Co ll ie r Tran si t M an ag em en t, In c. (“ Co ll ie r”). J im en ez i ni ti at edth is bre ach of
co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t ac ti on aft er h e was term in at edfro m hi s em pl oym en t o n Oct ob er 1 7, 2 00 7. Be cau se we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Ji m en ez fa il edto ex haus t h is rem ed ie s as setforth inth e co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t, we af

firm . BACKGRO UND Pri orto Octo be r 20 07 , Ji m en ez wo rk edforCo ll ie r as a bu s driv er an d was a m em be r of Loca l 5 00 of t he Tran sp ort Work ers Uni on of Am eri ca, AFL-CI O (th e

“un io n” ). A col le ct iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t (“ th e ag reem en t” ) en te redin to be twee n the un io n a ndCo ll ie r co ve redJi m en ez’s em pl oym en t atCo ll ie r. The ag reem en t o ut li ne s a g rie va nc e p ro cedur e th ro ug h wh ic h a n e m pl oyee who be li ev es th athe ha s b een di sc ha rg edwitho utjus t caus e m ay ha ve hi s ca se rev ie wed . The ag reem en t’s g rie va nc e p ro cedur e co ns is ts of atwo -s te p p ro ces s. St ep I st at es : The gri ev an ce s ha ll be pre se nt edto th e Co m pa ny with in sev en(7) da y s o f th e al le ge d g rie va nc e. The g rie va nc e sh al l b e d is cu ss edby th e supe rv is or , th e ag gr ie ve d e m pl oyee, andth e ag gr ie ve d em pl oyee’s st ewardwho sh al l re pr es en t the em pl oyee, if the em pl oyee so de si res , inanearn es t at te m ptto set tl e th e m at te r. The supe rv is orsh al l ev al ua te th e g rie va nc e o r co m pl ai ntan d re nd er a de ci si on . 2St ep 2 s ta te s:

If n otset tl edinSte p I, t he gri ev an ce s ha ll be subm it te d i n wri ti ng to th e Gen eral Man ag er wi th in ten (10 ) day s af te r th e Uni on s’s re cei pt of th e St ep I rep ly. A m eet in g b etweenth e Gen eral Man ag er, the ag gr ie ve d e m

pl oyee, andth e ag gr ie ve d e m pl oyee’s st ewardwho sh al l rep res en t the em

pl oyee if t he em

pl oyee so de si res , sh al l b e h el d withi n s ev en(7) da y s fo ll owi ng th e Co m pa ny’ s re cei ptof t he writ te n gr ie va nc e. A rep ly in wri ti ng sh al l b e m ai le d b y th e Gen eral Man ag er to th e Sh op Ste wardof t he Loca l Un io n, wi th a co py to t he em pl oyee, no lat er tha n fi ve (5) da y s af te r th e St ep II m eet in g. Arti cl e 9 , Sect io n A o f th e ag reem en t fu rth er p ro vi de s tha t “ [s ]hou ldan y gr ie va nc e rem ai n uns et tl edaft er ex haus ti ng th e afo rem en ti on ed[gr ie va nc e] pr oc edur e, ei th er p arty

he ret o s ha ll , if the pa rty des ire s, d em an d a rb it rat io n . . . Oth erwi se th e g rie va nc e sh al l b e co ns id eredset tl ed .” Add it io na ll y , Sect io n D o f Arti cl e 9 of t he ag reem en t p ro vi de s tha t ce rta in rig ht s re se rv edto m an ag em en t ar e n otsubjec t t o arb it rat io n. Art ic le 2 re se rv es cert ai n ri gh ts to th e co m

pa ny “to m an ag e it s b us in es s” whi chin cl ud es th e ri gh t “ to di sc ip li ne an d d is ch arg e em pl oyees fo r jus t caus e.” On Oct ob er 1 6, 2 00 7, J im en ez was co nv ic te d o f m is de m ean orass au ltan d ba tt ery ari si ng ou t o f a d is pu te with ane ig hb or . The n ex t d ay Ji m en ez was di sc ha rg edfro m

hi s emplo ym en t atCo ll ie r. Co ll ie r in fo rm edhi m th atit ch arac te riz edhi s d is ch arg e as on e d on e fo r “ jus t caus e.” Ina le tt er d at edOcto be r 26 , 20 07 , Ji m en ez’s Gen eral Man ag er atCo ll ie r, Eli zab eth S uc hs la nd , in fo rm ed 3Ji m en ez tha t h is em pl oym en t was term in at edbe cau se (1) th e co urt-i m po se d
se nt en ce wo ul d p rev en t h im fro m rep orti ng forworkan d (2 ) th e n atur e o f hi s cri m in al m is co nduc t “ cal l[e d] in to qu es ti on [hi s] abi li ty to p erfo rm as an e m pl oyee witho utex po si ng m em

be rs of t he rid in g p ub li c . . . to una ccep tabl e ri sk s.” Th e le tt er al so th an ke d J im en ez fo r “ co m in g t o s ee” S uc hs la ndab ou t h is term in at io n. Ji m en ez fi le d s ui t i n t he U.S. Dist ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Fl or id a cl ai m in g C ol li er b reac he d t he ag reem en t. His am en de d c om pl ai ntall eg ed th atCo ll ie r br each edth e ag reem en t b y (1) wron gf

ul ly dis ch arg in g h im

wher e th e in ci de ntgi vi ng ris e to hi s m is de m ean orco nv ic ti on was u nr el at edto hi s em pl oym en t an d (2 ) fai li ng to pro vi de Ji m en ez wi th th e ri gh t t o arb it rat io n. Sp eci fic al ly, Ji m en ez al le ge d t ha t ce rta in pro vi si on s o f th e ag reem en t i ts el f de ni ed hi m th e ri gh t t o a rb it rat io n g iv eninot he r pr ov is io ns . Ji m en ez as se rte d t ha t the la ng ua ge of Art ic le 2 wh enreadto ge th er wi th Sect io n D o f Arti cl e 9 rem ov es de ci si on s re gard in g t erm in at io n fo r jus t caus e fro m th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on , and th atth is lan gu ag e th ereb y pu t Co ll ie r in bre ach of t he ag reem en t. Co ll ie r fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t J im en ez was no t
en ti tl edto bri ng a lawsu itbe cau se he ha d n otex haus te d t he gri ev an ce p ro cedur es pr ov id edinth e ag reem en t. J im en ez re sp on de d tha t h e h adex haus te d t he pr oc edur es . Ji m en ez co nt en de d tha t h e sa ti sf ie d S te p I b y

co nt act in g the Gene ral 4Man ag er “ aft er b ei ng fir edto di sp ut e an d d is cu ss th e fi rin g.” Ji m en ez ar gu edth at

th is sat is fie d t he requi rem en t tha t h e p res en t h is gri ev an ce t o C ol li er thr ou gh hi s supe rv is orwhen he co nt act edSu ch sl an d b ecau se sh e h ad“ m ad e h ers el f th e ‘go
to -p ers on ’ reg ard in g [J im en ez’s] mis de m ean oris su e” b y writ in g h im

a le tt er o f
warn in g a fte r he was c ha rg edwith t he cri m e. As fo r St ep II, whe rei n t he
em pl oyee is requi redto subm ita writ te n g rie vanc e aft er wh ic h am eet in g wi ll be he ldbe twee n t he Gene ral Man ag er, the ag gr ie ve d e m pl oyee, andth e ag gr ie ve d
em pl oyee’s st eward , Ji m en ez as se rte d t ha t h e sa ti sf ie d t hi s re qu ire m en t b y ve rb al ly con ta ct in g t he Gene ral Man ag er a s eco ndti m e. He arg ue s tha t thi s se co ndco nt actsat is fie s St ep II b ecau se Su ch sl an d’s l et te r de m on st rat es th at reque st in g am eet in g wo ul d b e “ fu ti le ” as Su ch sl an d h adm ad e up h er m in d t o fi re Ji m en ez i n J un e whe n h e was ch arg edwith t he m is de m ean or . The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t J im en ez h adfai le d t o e xh au stth e ag reem en t’s gr ie va nc e p ro cedur es an d t ha t n o e xc ep ti on for fut il it y ap pl ie d. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co urt g ran te d C ol li er’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. J im en ez ap pe al ed
. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, ap pl y in g t he same leg al st an da rd s tha t b ou ndth e d is tri ctco urt, an d v ie win g a ll fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on m ov in g 5pa rty.” Cruz v. Publ ix Supe r Marke ts , Inc ., 42 8 F .3d13 79 , 13 82 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )

(ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d . . . th e m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c).

DISCUSS IO N

“ An em pl oyee se ek in g arem edy

foranall eg edbre ach of t he co ll ect iv eba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t b etweenhi s u ni on an d e m pl oyer m us t at te m ptto ex haus t
an y ex cl us iv e g rie va nc e an d a rb it rat io n p ro cedur es est ab li sh edby tha t ag reem en t be fo re h e m ay

m ai nt ai n asu itag ai ns t h is un io n o r em pl oyer un de r § 3 01 (a) o f th e Lab or Man ag em en t Re la ti on s Act , 19 47 , 61 Sta t. 1 56 , 29 U.S.C. § 1 85 (a).” Cl ayto n v . Int ’l Uni on , Uni te d Au to ., Aeros pa ce, an d Ag r. Im pl em en t Work ers of Am ., 45 1 U.S. 6 79 , 68 1 (1 98 1) (ci ti ng Rep ub li c St eel Co rp . v. Ma dd ox , 37 9 U.S. 65 0, 6 52 -5 3 (1 96 5) ). If h e d oe s n otex haus t tho se rem ed ie s o r do es no t p art ic ip at e in arb it rat io n wh ere r equi redun de r th e ag reem en t, the em pl oyee m ay

no t p ur su e rel ie f in th e co urts . Rep ub li c St eel , 37 9 U.S. at65 7- 58
. Here, the pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er J im en ez ex haus te d h is rem ed ie s u nd er the ag reem en t. J im en ez’s m ai n a rg um en t i s tha t h e was no t re qu ire d t o a rb it rat e th e qu es ti on of h is wron gf

ul term in at io n b ecau se th e arb itrat io n a gr eem en t, u nd er Arti cl e 2 an d S ect io n D o f Arti cl e 9 , do es no t p ro vi de forarb itrat io n wh ere 6m an ag em en t h as ex erci se d i ts rig htto term in at e anem pl oyee fo r jus t caus e. Altho ug h J im en ez co uc he s thi s ar gu m en t i n l an gu ag e o f “ fu ti li ty,” his real arg um en t i s tha t the arb it rat io n a gr eem en t d oe s n otactua ll y pro vi de for

arb it rat io n whe re the m an ag em en t ex erci se s i ts rig htto di sc ha rg e anem pl oyee fo r jus t caus e. W e fi ndno supp ort i n t he lan gu ag e o f th e ag reem en t fo r Ji m en ez’s s tra in ed read in g t ha t cl ai m s fo r wro ng fu l d is ch arg e are rem ov edfro m th e g rie va nc e an d arb it rat io n re qu ire m en ts . Sect io n C of Art ic le 9 o f th e ag reem en t s ta te s tha t gr ie va nc es for

“ al le ge d v io la ti on s o f th e Agr eem en t” are s ub ject t o t he gri ev an ce pr oc edur e an d a rb it rat io n c laus es . The o nl y st at edcau se of a ct io n i n J im en ez’s
co m pl ai ntis for

bre ach of t he co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t. J im en ez’s cl ai m is th us cle arl y

co ve redby the ag reem en t, an d J im en ez was requi redto subm ithi s cl ai m to th e g rie vanc e p ro ces s an d a rb it rat io n b efo re p ur su in g ajud ic ia l re m edy . Fu rth erm or e, th e ag reem en t p ro vi de s i n Art ic le 9, Se ct io n C th atarb it rat io n sh al l b e u se d t o re so lv e que st io ns reg ard in g “ th e in te rp ret at io n o r ap pl ic at io n o f pa rti cu la r cl au se s o f th is Agre em en t.” J im en ez’s que st io ns ab ou t wh ethe r th e m an ag em en t ri gh ts pro vi si on ex em pt s a wro ng fu l d is ch arg e cl ai m fro m th e arb it rat io n re qu ire m en t s ho ul d h av e b eenrai se d fi rs t thr ou ghth e g rie va nc e pr oc edur e. As the re i s n o e vi de nc e th atJi m en ez d idso , he c an no t ci rcu m ve ntth e ag reem en t b y

bri ng in g t hi s l aws ui t. 7Add it io na ll y , Ji m en ez’s arg um en t tha t h e subs ta nt ia ll y co m pl ie d wi th th e gr ie va nc e p ro cedur e fai ls . Step II cl earl y requi res th e subm is si on of agri ev an ce in
wr it in g . Ji m en ez ac kn owl ed ge s tha t h e d idno t s ub mita writ te n g rie va nc e, bu t arg ue s tha t v erb al ly con ta ct in g S uc hs landsat is fie d t ha t re qu ire m en t. No th in g i n th e ag reem en t i m

pl ie s tha t s ub st an ti al co m pl ia nc e wil l s uf

fic e. Furth erm or e, ev en if s ub st an ti al co m

pl ia nc e wit h S te p II was p erm it te d und er the ag reem en t, J im en ez di d n otsubm it– n orev enatt em ptto subm it– h is gri ev an ce t o arb it rat io n, wh ic h i s cl earl y a pa rt o f th e g rie va nc e p ro ces s es tabl is he d i n t he ag reem en t. Thu s, h e cl earl y fai le d t o e xh au sthi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s p rio r to in it ia ti ng th is laws ui t. Ji m en ez n ex t ar gu es th atitwou ldha ve be enfut il e to pu rs ue hi s cl ai m th ro ug h t he gri ev an ce p ro ces s b ecau se Su ch sl an d h adcle arl y m ad e up h er m in d t o te rm in at e Ji m en ez. “ Fu ti li ty” pro vi de s a p ro pe r ex cu se forfai li ng to ex haus t
rem ed ie s s etforth ina ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t. Pyles v . Uni te d Ai r Lin es , Inc ., 79 F.3 d 1 04 6, 1 05 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (“ [A]n ex cep ti on to th e ex haus ti on requi rem en t
ex is ts forsi tu at io ns wher e p ro ceed in g wi th adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wo ul d b e ‘who ll y fut il e.’”). The fu ti li ty excep ti on , ho wev er, requi res m or e th anth atth e gr ie va nc e p ro cedur es be unpr om is in g. “ The tes t fo r ‘fut il it y ’ is no t . . . whet he r th e em pl oyees’ cla im s wo ul d s uc ceed , bu t wh ethe r th e em pl oyees c ou ldha ve av ai le d t he m se lv es of t he gri ev an ce p ro cedur e.” Ma so n, II I v. C on ti ne nt al Group, 8In c., 76 3 F .2d12 19 , 12 24 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). To cl ai m fut il it y , th e “ em

pl oyee m ay no t s im pl y as se rt th athi s u se of t he gri ev an ce p ro cedur es wou ldha ve be enfut il e: he m us t o rd in ari ly at le as t h av e at te mpt ed to us e th em .” Parh am

v. Ca rri er Co rp ., 9 F .3d38 3, 3 90 -9 1 (5 th Cir . 19 92 ) (ci ti ng Vaca v . Sip es , 38 6 U.S. 1 71 , 18 4- 85 (1 96 7) ). Ji m en ez d idno t al le ge th athe att em pt edto in vo ke th e g rie va nc e pr oc edur es an d t ha t h e was de ni edm ean in gf ul rel ie f. Rathe r, he arg ue s s im pl y th atitwou ldha ve be enun su cces sf ul be cau se th e Gen eral Man ag er h adalr eady m ad e up h er m in d t o fi re h im an d b ecau se sh e h adalr eady pa rti ci pa te d i n s om e fo rm of m eet in g, o bv ia ti ng th e n eedfora fo rm al m eet in g u nd er St ep II. Thi s as se rti on do es no t ex cu se Ji m en ez fo r fai li ng to ex haus t h is rem ed ie s o r pu ru se arb it rat io n a s re qu ire d u nd er the ag reem en t o n t he ba si s o f fu ti li ty. Ji m en ez al so arg ue s tha t Co ll ie r “ rep ud ia te d” hi s ef fo rts to go th ro ug h t he gr ie va nc e p ro cedur es . Ji m en ez, h owe ve r, di d n otrai se th is arg um en t b efo re the di st ric t co urt an d the refo re we wi ll no t as se ss th e m eri ts of t hi s as se rti on . See Irao la& CIA, S.A. v. Ki m be rly-Cla rkCo rp ., 32 5 F .3d12 74 , 12 84 -8 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 03 ). Ji m en ez’s ci ta ti on to two cas es th athapp en edto di sc us s re pu di at io n d id
no t p res erv e th atarg um en t fo r rev ie w onap pe al . Ji m en ez ci te d t o Lar se n v . AirTra n Ai rway s, In c., 20 07 WL 23 20 59 2 (M .D. Fla., Au g. 1 0, 2 00 7) an d Durh am Life Ins .Co . v. Eva ns , 19 94 WL 44 74 06 (E.D. Pa. Aug . 19 , 19 94 ) inhi s d is cu ss io n 9of

fut il it y . The fac t tha t the se cas es als o s ep arat el y m en ti on rep ud ia ti on do es no t
supp ort J im en ez’s co nt en ti onth athe arg ue d the is su e o f rep ud ia ti on be fo re the di st ric t co urt. Alt ho ug h J im en ez’s p aren th et ic al reg ard in g Du rh am di d re fer t o rep ud ia ti on , a br ie f refe ren ce i n apa ren th et ic al is in su ffi ci en t t o p res erv e an arg um en t. See Greenbr ia r, Ltd . v. Ci ty of Alaba st er, 8 81 F.2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) (no ti ng th atarg um en ts m ad e in pa ss in g o n app eal are

“ in su ffi ci en t t o p res en t the m at te r fo r ad jud ic at io n” ). 1 CONCLUSI ON Bec au se Ji m en ez fa il edto ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s u nd er the op erat iv e co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t an d d idno t es tabl is h alawf ul ex cu se for
su chfai lu re, we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o Co ll ie r.

Reg ardle ss of whethe r Ji menez raised a repudiation defenseto his failure to exhaust 1 administrative re medies in the cour t below, he would not obtain re lief through this doctrine. In order to argue that Collier re pudiated the grieva nce pr ocess, he would have to show that he attempted to utiliz e those proc edure s. Redmond v. Dresse r I ndustries, Inc., 734 F .2d 633, 636 (11th Cir. 1984) (“ [B]efore [the plaintiff] can a ssert repudiation of the grieva nce pr ocedur e, he must first file his grievanc e.”) . As discussed supra , J imenez never attempted to file a

written grieva nce or submit hi s claim to arbitration. 10