Court Opinion

ID: 9479399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:17:08.559109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:00.493751
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court that this dispute cannot be resolved without interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. I further agree with the Court that the grievance process is not now futile as the plaintiff has actually discovered the alleged fraud. *1041We should not, however, simply dismiss this case without having provided plaintiff an opportunity to pursue his claims. The plaintiff is still entitled to pursue in the grievance process the wrongs which he has alleged his employer committed.
This is a difficult and puzzling case because of the jury’s finding that the employer, Greyhound, defrauded the plaintiff employee in the reinstatement and grievance process by manufacturing false medical reports and misrepresenting the diagnosis of the company’s doctor. That conduct so misled the plaintiff; his counsel and his union representative that a fair grievance process became improbable during the period of fraudulent nondisclosure.
Once, however, the evidence of the employer’s fraudulent misconduct became apparent at a later date, a full and fair grievance process became possible. That grievance process, not a lawsuit in state or federal court, was what the parties had bargained for. At this point in the history of this case, however, we encounter the problem of the limitations period for initiating the grievance process, for Greyhound prevented plaintiff from discovering its fraud until the limitations period had expired. It would be inequitable to allow Greyhound, on these facts, to escape the grievance procedure it has contracted for. Rather, the employer’s concealment of the real facts and the pendency of this lawsuit toll the running of the limitations period for the filing of a grievance proceeding. Hence the grievance process remains open even at this late date. The case should be remanded to the District Court with instructions to order the parties to proceed with the grievance process provided by the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator will be in a position to construe the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in light of the alleged fraudulent concealment of medical information and determine the appropriate award, if any.