Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2794 - Payton v. United States Postal Service et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2794 - Payton v. United States Postal Service et al
December 29, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff Robert Payton brings this employment action against his former employer, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") and his union, the National Association of Letter Carriers ("NALC" or "the Union"). Plaintiff alleges he was wrongly discharged from his employment as a letter carrier, and that he is entitled to reinstatement, compensatory damages, interest and attorney's fees under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"). Compl. 66-75, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges that USPS violated its collective bargaining agreement when it terminated Plaintiff, and that the Union violated its duty of fair representation under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Id.76-78. Defendants both move to dismiss this latter "hybrid" claim-against USPS for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and against the Union for violation of its duty of fair representation-under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss the Third Claim of the Complaint as untimely. The First and Second Claims of the Complaint are left undisturbed. (See attachment for additional details). Ordered by Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 12/29/2016. (Basnight, Jasmine)
April 5, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: P Plaintiff Robert Payton has failed to respond to this Court's order to show cause of January 29,2018, or otherwise comply with the long-outstanding directives of Magistrate Judge Reyes, or communicate in any fashion with the Court or opposing counsel. Mr. Payton's pattern of non-compliance, as outlined in the government's letter of December 18,2017, regrettably leaves the Court with no alternative but to terminate the litigation. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. SO Ordered by Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 4/5/2018. (Ramesar, Thameera)