Patricia Elizabeth Nosie v. Association of Flight Attendants-Cwa, Afl-Cio

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA ELIZABETH NOSIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-17871
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00062-ACK-
LEK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Elizabeth Nosie appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging discrimination and violation of the duty of fair
representation by her former union. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-17871 2
We review de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nosie’s discrimination claims because
Nosie failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she “was singled out and treated
less favorably than others similarly situated on account of” her sex, race, color or
age. Beck v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874,
882 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth
prima facie case for a Title VII discrimination claim against a union); see also
Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2012) (applying Title VII analysis
to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
The district court properly dismissed Nosie’s fair representation claims as
time-barred because Nosie did not file her action within six months of learning that
her former union would pursue her grievance no further. See Stallcop v. Kaiser
Found. Hosps., 820 F.2d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s fair representation
claim was time-barred because she did not file her action within six months of
receiving the union’s letter notifying her it would pursue her grievance no further);
Kelly v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 896 F.2d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) (six-month
statute of limitations applies to fair representation claims brought against unions
covered by the Railway Labor Act).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-17871 3
Nosie’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --