Court Opinion

ID: 1002659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:13:53.398555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:11.770585
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NAOMI S. BENNEFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION;
                                                                      No. 99-2460
UNION OF NEEDLETRADES, INDUSTRIAL
AND TEXTILE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
CLC, Local 1093-T,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-97-3587-0-17BC)

Submitted: August 31, 2000

Decided: September 26, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael T. Howe, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Baker
Wyche, III, Glenn R. Goodwin, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina; Herbert E.
Buhl, III, Columbia, South Carolina; David M. Prouty, UNITE, New
York, New York, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Naomi S. Bennefield appeals the district court's entry of summary
judgment in favor of her former employer, Hoechst Celanese Corpo-
ration (Celanese), in her claims that the company discriminated
against her on the basis of age and retaliated against her for pursuing
her rights. Bennefield also appeals the district court's entry of judg-
ment for the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees
(UNITE), in her claim that the union breached its duty of fair repre-
sentation under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,
29 U.S.C.A. § 185 (West 1998).

We conclude, as did the district court, that the claims against Cela-
nese were untimely filed. With the three-day delivery period of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(e), which we hold applicable in this case, Bennefield's
filing was beyond the statutory ninety-day period. The facts do not
warrant an equitable tolling of that period. Therefore, the district court
properly entered judgment on these claims.

The district court also did not err in holding that no genuine issue
of fact existed as to Bennefield's claim against UNITE. Bennefield
has not exhausted the contractual grievance and arbitration process,
as three grievances are pending arbitration. See Republic Steel Corp.
v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652-53 (1965) (employee must attempt to
exhaust contractual grievance and arbitration procedures before bring-
ing § 301 action). Therefore, the claim is not properly in federal court.
In addition, there is no evidence to support the allegation that UNITE
acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in handling Benne-
field's grievances. Therefore, this claim lacks merit. See Vaca v.
Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1967).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

                     2
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3