Opinion ID: 2576244
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Schaub's claim is a hybrid claim.

Text: If Schaub's claim were a straightforward suit under § 301 for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, the suit would be subject to the state statute of limitations for contract actions. [35] But the collective bargaining agreement in this case contains mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures in which Schaub's union must participate. As discussed above, in order to prevail in his suit against K & L, Schaub must demonstrate both that his discharge violated the collective bargaining agreement and that his union breached its duty of fair representation. [36] This makes Schaub's claim hybrid. In DelCostello, the Supreme Court explained that a claim may be hybrid even when the employee chooses to sue only the employer or only the union. [37] The Supreme Court reasoned: The employee may, if he chooses, sue one defendant and not the other; but the case he must prove is the same whether he sues one, the other, or both. The suit is thus not a straightforward breach of contract suit under § 301, as was Hoosier, but a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim. . . . [38] This is the situation in Schaub's case. As one court observed, what makes a case a `hybrid' action against both union and employer is the nature of the claim, not the identity of the parties.  [39] In fact, Schaub acknowledges in his briefing that his claim is hybrid. Having determined that Schaub's claim is hybrid, we next examine whether his claim is subject to the six-month statute of limitations applied in DelCostello.