Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
The Latest UPS Headlines
CARLISLE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cheryl" data-source="post: 3696505" data-attributes="member: 1"><p><strong>CARLISLE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. - Leagle</strong></p><p></p><p>ROBERT W. CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., TEAMSTERS LOCAL 687, AN AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendants-Appellees.</p><p></p><p>Plaintiff-appellant Robert W. Carlisle ("Carlisle") appeals from an order of the District Court granting separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants-appellees United Parcel Service and Teamsters Local 687 ("UPS" and "the Union," respectively). Carlisle brought suit on November 8, 2015, alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and that UPS breached the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and UPS by terminating his employment (together, the "Hybrid § 301" action). On appeal, Carlisle argues that the District Court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact against him when it granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, the underlying procedural history, and the issues on appeal.</p><p></p><p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p><p></p><p>We have considered all of Carlisle's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.</p><p></p><p>Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cheryl, post: 3696505, member: 1"] [B]CARLISLE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. - Leagle[/B] ROBERT W. CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., TEAMSTERS LOCAL 687, AN AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendants-Appellees. Plaintiff-appellant Robert W. Carlisle ("Carlisle") appeals from an order of the District Court granting separate motions for summary judgment filed by defendants-appellees United Parcel Service and Teamsters Local 687 ("UPS" and "the Union," respectively). Carlisle brought suit on November 8, 2015, alleging that the Union breached its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and that UPS breached the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and UPS by terminating his employment (together, the "Hybrid § 301" action). On appeal, Carlisle argues that the District Court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact against him when it granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, the underlying procedural history, and the issues on appeal. [B]CONCLUSION[/B] We have considered all of Carlisle's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
The Latest UPS Headlines
CARLISLE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Top