Court Opinion

ID: 9474845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:10:47.340839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:22.587633
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Once again the “forgotten” grievance— not actionable under our cases, see Graf v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., 697 F.2d 771 (7th Cir.1983); Hoffman v. Lonza, Inc., 658 F.2d 519 (7th Cir.1981); but see 658 F.2d at 523 (Cudahy, J., concurring)—returns to haunt us. Daniel Graf has endured a lengthy, bewildering and utterly fruitless journey through and around the court system — state and federal. He has never had a trial. I certainly cannot quarrel with the majority’s hopes for making the arbitral system work. Employees with complaints like Graf’s could hardly be worse off than they now seem to be in court. With these reservations and misgivings about the larger problem, I agree with the majority that the district court was authorized to dismiss Count 5 under the authority of Jackson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 717 F.2d 1045 (7th Cir.1983).1

. I agree with the apparent view of the majority that as an original matter one might have had serious doubts about the theory underlying Jackson. See Jackson, 717 F.2d at 1057 (Posner, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).