Hafer v. National Railroad

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD HAFER; RANDALL HATMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
No. 99-2537
CORPORATION; TRANSPORTATION
COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge.
(CA-98-4154-MJG)

Submitted: March 20, 2000

Decided: April 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John G. Koenig, Jr., ROBINSON & KOENIG, Ellicott City, Mary-
land, for Appellants. Bruce S. Harrison, Eric Hemmendinger,
SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland; Christopher J.
Tully, Assistant General Counsel, Rockville, Maryland, for Appel-
lees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Richard Hafer and Randall Hatman ("Plaintiffs") appeal from the
entry of summary judgment against them in their claims against the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("AMTRAK") and the
Transportation-Communications International Union ("TCU"). We
affirm.

The Plaintiffs are AMTRAK employees and TCU members. They
allege that, in 1993 and each year since, AMTRAK published a
seniority roster that understated their seniority. They filed multiple
protests against these rosters. AMTRAK denied relief on two of these
protests (in 1996 and 1997) and did not respond to the others.

In 1998, the Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit alleging that AMTRAK
violated their collective bargaining agreement; that TCU breached its
duty of fair representation; and that both Defendants conspired to
wrongfully reject the Plaintiffs' grievances. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs noted
a timely appeal.

The district court found that the collective bargaining and fair rep-
resentation claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations
that governs Railway Labor Act claims. We agree. At the latest, the
Plaintiffs' claims accrued when their 1996 grievances were denied.
See Meekins v. United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.
1991). Although the seniority roster was re-issued as recently as 1998
and AMTRAK has not responded to the Plaintiffs' ensuing grievance,
these actions are not wrongful except insofar as the 1993 seniority
roster and 1996 ruling were improper. Thus, there was no continuing
violation in this case. See Local Lodge No. 1424, Int'l Ass'n of
Machinists v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 422-23 (1960). Moreover, the
repetitive use of the grievance process did not extend the statute of

2
limitations for the Plaintiffs' claims. See West v. ITT Continental Bak-
ing Co., 683 F.2d 845, 846 (4th Cir. 1982).

With respect to the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim, the district
court ruled that this claim could not survive the dismissal of the Rail-
way Labor Act claims, because Maryland law does not recognize con-
spiracy as an independent tort. Once again, we agree. See Alleco v.
Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Found., 665 A.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Md.
1995); see also Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co. , 934 F.2d 203, 208
(9th Cir. 1991) (holding that conspiracy claim failed under California
law when other claims were dismissed as time-barred).

For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3