On January 24, 2008, Kerry Shea Price (“Price”) was terminated from his job with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA“) for failing to indicate on his application that he had been convicted of a felony. Price v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 11-CV-0567, 2012 WL 1216121 (D.C. Apr. 12, 2012). After Price was fired, he filed a grievance which was eventually put to a vote with his Union as to whether or not the grievance should be taken to arbitration. Id. On August 6th, 2008, the Union voted not to arbitrate his grievance. Id. On November 7th, 2008, Price filed a pro se (i.e. he represented himself) complaint against WMATA, his Union, and specific Union individuals arguing that WMATA wrongfully terminated him and that the Union arbitrarily refused to take his grievance against WMATA to arbitration. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Id. On December 10th, 2009, Price filed an almost identical claim which, on April 10th, 2010, the trial court dismissed the complaint partially because it “f[ell] beyond the applicable six-month statute of limitations.” Id.
In response to the Trial Court’s ruling that Price’s claim lay outside the statute of limitations, Price appealed. Id. Price argued on appeal, that the Trial Court erred by applying the six-month statute of limitations described in the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), instead of applying the District of Columbia’s three-year limitations period for contracts. Id. Specifically, Price argued that the NLRA is not applicable to the WMATA, because the organization is a political subdivision and therefore does not fall within the NLRA’s definition of “employer.” Id.
On appeal, the Court relied on DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983), which stipulates that cases like Price’s “borrow” the definition of employer for the NLRA, and therefore it upheld the trial court’s decision. Id. The court explained that although “’the [WMATA agreement], not the … National Labor Relations Act, governs WMATA’s collective-bargaining relationship with its employees and their representatives’ courts—including this court—have looked to NLRA case law to derive principles applicable to disputes involving the WMATA collective bargaining agreement.” Id.
