## Facts

- April Thovson worked for Behavioral Health Resources (Behavioral) and was covered by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between Behavioral and the Service Employees International Union Healthcare (the union).
- Behavioral terminated Thovson, and she filed a grievance under the CBA.
- The grievance proceeded to arbitration, and Thovson prevailed.
- The arbitrator found the allegations against Thovson were not accurate and ordered that she be reinstated with support upon her return to work.
- After returning, Thovson alleged that coworkers harassed her and that her work environment became hostile.
- A supervisor told Thovson she was not meeting job requirements, and she ultimately received a written warning.
- The union filed a grievance challenging the written warning, asserting it was retaliation connected to Thovson’s earlier arbitration win.
- The parties agreed to mediate the retaliation grievance; mediation did not resolve the dispute.
- Under the CBA, the next step after unsuccessful mediation was arbitration, but Thovson resigned instead of proceeding to arbitration.
- Thovson’s resignation ended the CBA dispute-resolution process.
- Thovson then sued Behavioral under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging Behavioral violated the CBA, and Behavioral moved to dismiss on the ground that Thovson did not exhaust contractual remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee covered by a CBA may bring an LMRA § 301 claim for breach of the CBA without completing the CBA’s grievance and arbitration process when the employee resigned before the final arbitration step.
2. Whether the grievance/arbitration exhaustion requirement is excused as futile based on allegations that the employer failed to follow a prior arbitration award and retaliated after reinstatement.

## Decision

- The court granted Behavioral’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held Thovson could not proceed under LMRA § 301 because she did not complete the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedure before filing suit.
- The court rejected Thovson’s futility argument, concluding that allegations of post-reinstatement mistreatment and claimed noncompliance with the earlier arbitration award did not plausibly show that using the CBA’s process would have been useless.
- Because arbitration remained available as the next contractual step when Thovson resigned, the court treated her resignation as ending the contractual process before exhaustion.

## Legal Principles

- An employee suing under LMRA § 301 for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement generally must first use and complete the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures.
- Where a CBA provides a grievance/arbitration mechanism for resolving disputes about contract rights, that mechanism is ordinarily the required path before resort to court.
- Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are limited; they may apply when the union wrongfully fails to pursue a grievance (such as bad-faith representation) or when the contractual process is truly unavailable.
- Futility requires a showing that the contractual procedure itself cannot provide relief in practice, not merely that the employee expects the employer to resist or act improperly.
- When arbitration remains an available step in the CBA process, stopping the process before arbitration (including by resigning) supports dismissal of a later § 301 contract claim for non-exhaustion.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Thovson’s LMRA § 301 lawsuit because she resigned before completing the CBA’s grievance process through arbitration, and her allegations that Behavioral mistreated her after reinstatement and failed to carry out the earlier arbitration award did not establish that pursuing the remaining arbitration step would have been futile.


Thovson v. Behavioral Health Resources, 2012 WL 4514431 (2012)