John A. Peters v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[plaintiff] had presented a triable question as to whether the union acted in a completely arbitrary, indifferent manner by failing to research the [collective bargaining agreement]”
• “[I]t makes little sense to allow a union to hide behind the mantle of ‘judgment’ and ‘discretion’ when the evidence suggests that it actually exercised neither.”
• \But we must be able to determine whether the union deliberated the issue in the first place\
• “[plaintiff] had presented a triable question as to whether the union acted in a completely arbitrary, indifferent manner by failing to research the [collective bargaining agreement]”
• “[I]t makes little sense to allow a union to hide behind the mantle of ‘judgment’ and ‘discretion’ when the evidence sug- gests that it actually exercised neither.”
• “ ‘[M]inisterial act’ and ‘act of judgment’ represent . . . opposing points on a continuum that broadly attempts to sepa- rate discretionary decision making from inexplicable con- duct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).