No. 19-7686
Maurice Buford v. Laborers' International Union Local 269, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights discrimination duty-of-fair-representation employment-law fair-representation harassment labor-law labor-union statute-of-limitations title-vii weingarten-rights whistleblower-protection
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration SocialSecurity ERISA DueProcess FourthAmendment Punishment Securities Immigration EmploymentDiscrimina LaborRelations Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration SocialSecurity ERISA DueProcess FourthAmendment Punishment Securities Immigration EmploymentDiscrimina LaborRelations Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Discrimination/Duty of Fair Representation violated by the Labor International Union 269 under Title VH 42 U.S.C. 2000(e)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. Whether Discrimination/Duty of Fair Representation violated by the Labor International Union 269 under Title VH 42 U.S.C. 2000(e} (Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (1987) and section 1981, Harassment and Segregation under 42 U.S.C. 1981 (ones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 US. 369 (2004) statute of limitations supersedes the limitations of the “hybrid” 301/unfair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act (LAMRA) 29 U.S.C,
Docket Entries
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-04
Waiver of right of respondent Laborers Local Unions 269 and 4 to respond filed.
2019-12-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 19, 2020)
Attorneys
Laborers Local Unions 269 and 4
Robert S. Cervone — Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Auerbach & Yokich, Respondent
Robert S. Cervone — Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Auerbach & Yokich, Respondent