WPC\ +Fh, S׬:V܈_=W~4f&1%!@@S?E"AGeW[]MSRSY%0eH>Vi L\aƴo <6;$anp@nU1WA-~jcSfZ'eN=Mғ;qbXhs_-JOĿv[z61iلwԥC*oAYO3;l˫9H=p?ﳭRtQÎx~5We3i15q4O;r }i>Ruϣo$o1O;IJ QN57;ܕXh6G>%sk/RZuu.nفK O)}榡 1v1􊮫QO\9r_r%7@rHraH^֪ܵ |UmpX~L$-d@wߔo41yOMBhj# % 0D 0G U: 0X U 8= nTu N UN UF ^ _ wk 4o   E f a m N ^ UB#be<mE 0U 0C 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0c 0C7 0z 0Q B% 0B 0 0 0 0t! 09" 0@" 09# 0 $ 0$ 0% 0w& 0?' 0( 0( 00) 0<) 0) 0>* 0v* 0`a+ 0`+ 0`!, 0`, 0`, 08A- 0y- 02K. 0}. 0:y/ 0Y/ 0_ 0 0 k0 0ju1 02 B*c4 D/4 D+4 04 D/k6 06 06h7 07 0:8 0^8 0<>9U6z9U>9U*9:>nTB 0NCMDNcD 1eD 72D 1u$E 72E 0 cE .F9I9I9IK, QHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XFXXX    =FXXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regulars/s K.s?,}backup3|xTABLE AUL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - A.P.W.U. PRALVallellanes EEOCAyalaCaparraTronquistas W]eDelCostello FantC.F.R.marginalizemarginalizingTronguistas VacaSipesAvala J.A.CastellanosU.S.P.S.precomplaintprecomplaintsconspir[ing APWUSimontons]uchHealthcodispositive--Fed.AppxAmmlungLeitch i]fAss'nHosmerCitibankF.Supp i]thomoxexualP.R.A.L.A.F.L.Tolle CBA$discriminatorilyInt'lOoleySchwitzerSec'yinartfullyDonnellymeritless Gell Iren ; $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    1    _Atoralargument,plaintiff'scounselexplainedthatthe 8 CaparraHeightsstationoperatestwentyfourhoursaday,seven  daysaweek.Whileemployeesatthepostofficetypicallywork  onlyfivedaysaweek,theallotteddaysoffformanypositionsdo  notcorrespondwiththeweekend.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7L(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7&  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?X%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7K)2dxd0KS.SampleKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKV<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    4    _UnderArticle2,Section1oftheCBA: 8 8  TheEmployerandtheUnionagreethatthereshallbeno  discriminationbytheEmployerortheUnionagainst  employeesbecauseofrace,color,creed,nationalorigin, X sex,age,ormaritalstatus.Inaddition,consistent f. withotherprovisionsofthisagreement,thereshallbe <  nounlawfuldiscriminationagainsthandicappedemployees,   asprohibitedbytheRehabilitationAct.    ЀCollectiveBargainingAgreementbetweenAmericanPostalWorkers  \  Union,AFLCIO,andU.S.PostalService;November21,1994 j 2  November20,1998.  $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    3    _ XU XXXU TheEEOcomplaintprocessprovidesanadministrativeforum 8 forpostalemployeestoresolvediscriminationclaimsagainstthe  USPS.Postalworkersallegingdiscriminationarerequiredtofile  a"precomplaint"andconsultwithanEEOcounselor.Ifthematter  raisedintheprecomplaintisnotresolvedwithintheestablished X 30daycounselingperiod,theemployeeisauthorizedtofilea f. formalEEOcomplaint.Oncetheformalcomplaintisfiled,USPSis <  compelledtotakeactionwithinaspecifiedtimeperiod.After   thisperiodexpires,theemployeeispermittedtofilesuitin   UnitedStatesDistrictCourt.#XU XX XU #ԀWhatYouNeedtoKnowAboutEEO,    Publication133,November1999,.<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(O$   (CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)_(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ai)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    2    _Moralesallegesthathewasassignedtothispositionasa 8 reasonableaccommodationforajobrelatedinjury.Itappearsthat  plaintiffsufferedfromaphysicaldisabilitythatlimitedthe  stresshecouldplaceonhisrightarm.Thisdisabilityrestricted  thetasksthatplaintiffcouldpainlesslyperformatwork,and X allegedlyprovidedUSPSwithapretextforexcludinghimfromthe f.  workplaceinFebruary1997.Seeinfra.  $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    6    _APWU'sbylawsdopermitdeposedshopstewardstofilea 8 writtenappealwithinfifteendaysoftheirremoval,andprovide  that"TheBoardofDirectorswillmakeafullinvestigationonthe  workplaceorInstallationandrenderawrittendecisionwithin15  days"ofreceivingtheappeal.ThereisnoindicationthatMorales X everavailedhimselfofthisoption.  $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    5    _Onfactssimilartothese,theSeventhCircuitbroadly 8 construedtheplaintiff'scomplainttoinvokeTitleVIIasabasis  forrelief:  8  AlthoughBrown'scomplaintdoesnotinvokeTitleVIIas X abasisforherclaimexplicitly,itdoesindicatethat f. anEEOCchargehadbeenmadeandthatthecomplaintwas <  filedwithinninetydaysafterreceivinganEEOCright   tosueletter...ThereferenceinBrown'scomplaintto   EEOCproceduresdidgivethedefendantssomenoticethat    shewaspursuingafederalTitleVIIaction...Though  \  inartfullydrafted,wearehesitanttojudgeBrown's j 2  complaintsonarrowlyastoforeclosethefull @  adjudicationofherclaimonthemerefailuretocite   TitleVIIexplicitly.    Brownv.ReliableSheetMetalWorks,Inc.,852F.2d932,933n.1 `  (7thCir.1988),overruledonothergrounds,Donnellyv.Yellow n6 FreightSystem,Inc.,874F.2d402(7thCir.1989). D     " $XU XXX  =U XXdd=    7    _Plaintiff'sinternalgrievancesagainstAPWUare 8 theoreticallyactionableunderTitleVII,whichprovidesthat"[i]t   shallbeanunlawfulemploymentpracticeforalabororganization 8 toexcludeortoexpelfromitsmembership,orotherwiseto  discriminateagainst,anyindividualbecauseofhisrace,color,  religion,sex,ornationalorigin."42U.S.C.2000e2(c)(1);  see,e.g.,Thornv.AmalgamatedTransitUnion,305F.3d826,83132 X (8thCir.2002).However,thedistrictcourtcorrectlyadoptedthe f. magistratejudge'sdeterminationthatMoralesfailedtoexhaustthe <  administrativeremediesprovidedbytheUnion'sbylaws:   Ѐ   8  Plaintiffshouldhaveexhaustedthecontractualremedies    providedtohimastoanyclaimagainsttheUnionand/or  \  itsagentswhichisnotestablishedasabreachofits j 2  dutyoffairrepresentation,suchashisremovalfrom @  shopstewardposition.Hefailedtoexhaustinternal   unionappealprocess.    Consequently,MoraleshasforfeitedanyTitleVIIclaimarising `  fromhisinternaluniongrievances.Inreachingthisconclusion, n6 werejectasuntenableMorales'scomplaintthathewasunfairly D  surprisedbythemagistratejudge'spartialrelianceonan  exhaustionrationalefordisposingofhisclaimsagainstAPWU.The  recordconclusivelydemonstratesthatAPWUputtheexhaustionpoint  atissuethroughoutthelitigationbeforethemagistratejudge. d Forthisreason,theexhaustionargumentsandsupportingexhibits r: raisedforthefirsttimebeforethedistrictcourtwere H inadmissibleduetoMorales'sfailuretopresentthesematerialsto  themagistratejudge.SeePatersonLeitchCo.v.Mass.Mun.  WholesaleElec.Co.,840F.2d985,991(1stCir.1988)("Systemic  efficiencieswouldbefrustratedandthemagistrate'srolereduced h tothatameredressrehearserifapartywereallowedtofeintand v> weaveattheinitialhearing,andsaveitsknockoutpunchforthe L secondround."). !XU XXX  _ TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T88 ? * ! X<*XXXU  jX X<*     ]Oa UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals A? j 8 FortheFirstCircuit  S A? XU X S   2A') ` dE< ` A   No.022190      `     h @l l ANGELDAVIDMORALESVALLELLANES,  G  @ Plaintiff,Appellant, +  @tt)v.   @ppJOHNE.POTTER,UNITEDSTATESPOSTMASTERGENERAL; K    AMERICANPOSTALWORKERSUNION,PUERTORICOAREALOCAL(A.P.W.U. Y! P.R.A.L.)A.F.L.C.I.O.;DANIELSOTO,PRESIDENTA.P.W.U. / P.R.A.L.;ENRIQUELOPEZ,  @Defendants,Appellees. y A') ` dE<\` A ]%   @@` ` APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT B  FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO  b@pp[Hon.JayA.GarcaGregory,U.S.DistrictJudge]    [Hon.J.A.Castellanos,U.S.MagistrateJudge] b fA') ` dE<E` A F @'Before +    @@((Torruella,Selya,andLipez,CircuitJudges. " A') ` dE<X"` A Y"!%       MiguelE.MirandaGutirrezforappellant. >#'   ArturoLucianoDelgadoforappelleesAmericanPostalWorkers $( UnionandDanielSoto. $ )   DavidG.Karro,withwhomGuillermoGil,UnitedStates %!* Attorney,FidelA.SevillanoDelRio,AssistantUnitedStates &^"+ Attorney,EricJ.Scharf,andStephanJ.Boardmanwereonbrief, l'4#, forappelleeUnitedStatesPostalService. B( $-    ` *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  )%/)%   SIR*&0 y@37836y@SAugust4,2003 (+&2  RHC+'3" y@37836 y@ R(R*&4  (   * ! -(4?     8U XXdd8*,X` XX* ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .PlaintiffAngelDavidMorales 8 Vallellanes("Morales")broughtthisactionagainsttheUnited  StatesPostalService("USPS"or"thePostalService")alleging t thathewasthetargetofretaliatoryanddiscriminatoryacts X  provokedbycomplaintsthathefiledwiththeOccupationalSafety   andHealthAdministration("OSHA").MoralesalsosuedtheAmerican  x  PostalWorkersUnion("APWU"or"theUnion")anditspresident, \$  DanielSoto,inthesameaction,claimingthattheUnionbreached   itsdutyoffairrepresentationbyfailingtosubmitandprocess |  hisgrievancesagainstUSPS. `(  ` TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof   PuertoRicoreferredthecasetoamagistratejudge,who  recommendedthatthecourtgrantmotionsforsummaryjudgment d, submittedbydefendantsUSPSandtheUnion.Moralesfileda  lengthyobjectiontothereportandrecommendation,essentially  restatingtheallegationsinhisamendedcomplaint,butalso h0 incorporatingsixtysevennewexhibitsthathadnotpreviouslybeen   broughttothemagistratejudge'sattention.Concludingthat  " "Plaintiff...failedtoraiseanymaterialissuenotadequately l"4$ addressedbythemagistratejudgeinhisReport,"thedistrict $& courtadoptedthemagistratejudge'sreportandrecommendation,and %!( grantedthedefendants'motionsforsummaryjudgment.After p'8#*  carefulreview,weaffirminpartandreverseinpart. )$, &      I.  8  ` Wesummarizetherelevantfactsfromthesummaryjudgment  ' 8record,recitingtheminthelightmostfavorabletoMorales.See t Diazv.CityofFitchburg,176F.3d560,561(1stCir.1999).In X  1988,Moraleswashiredtoworkasadistributionandwindowclerk   attheCaparraHeights,PuertoRico,StationoftheUnitedStates  x  PostalService.OnApril7,1995,plaintifffiledaletterwith \$  OSHAcomplainingofdustaccumulation,rodentinfestation,and   otherunsanitaryconditionsattheCaparraHeightsstation.OSHA |  orderedthestationmanagertocorrecttheviolationsbyJune19, `( 1995,buttonoavail.MoralesrenewedhisOSHAcomplaintthrough   certifiedletterstotheOSHAAreaDirectoronAugust1,1995,  February23,1996,andApril6,1996.Finally,onJune14,1996, d, OSHAconductedaformalinspectionoftheCaparraHeightsstation  andconfirmedplaintiff'sallegations.OSHAcitedtheCaparra  Heightsstationforatleastfiveviolations,anddirectedthe h0 stationtoremedythesafetyandhealthhazardsbyOctober9,1996.    ` Atthispoint,webifurcateourchronologyofthe  " subsequenteventsforpurposesofclarity,turningfirsttothe l"4$ circumstancesthatspawnedMorales'sclaimsagainstthePostal $& Service,andconcludingwithanaccountoftheeventsunderlying %!( plaintiff'sclaimsagainsttheUnion. p'8#*  A.EventsunderlyingtheclaimsagainstUSPS  )$,  ` ThroughouttheOSHAcomplaintprocess,theagencyassured *&. MoralesthathisidentityasanOSHAcomplainantwouldbekept ,X(0 confidential,andthatfederallawforbadeUSPSfromretaliatingor 8 discriminatingagainsthimforwhistleblowing.Nevertheless,  plaintiff'samendedcomplaintallegesthatbyJuly1995other X employeesattheCaparraHeightsstationwereawarethathehad <  filedOSHAcomplaints,andwereretaliatingagainsthim.That   month,MoralesalertedthePostalInspectionServicethathehad  \  receivedtwothreatsfromcoworkers,butnoremedialstepswere @  taken.    ` InJanuary1996,plaintiffexpressedinterestinan `  availabledistributionandwindowclerkpositionwithSaturdaysand D  Sundaysoff. #  1      ׀USPSthenallegedlyreclassifiedthepositionto  offeronlySundaysandThursdaysoffsoastodecreaseits d desirabilitytoplaintiff.OnMarch23,1996,EnriqueLopez,the H CaparraHeightsstationsupervisor,issuedaletterofwarningto  Moralesforunsatisfactoryperformance,citingtheplaintiff's h "abuseofcoffeebreaks."Twomonthslater,LopezremovedMorales L fromhispositionasaBusinessReplyMailClerk,PostageDueClerk   andExpressMailClerk,d #  2      ׀andreplacedhimwithafemalecoworker.  l" InJuly1996,tiresonMorales'scarwerepuncturedontwoseparate 8 occasionswhilethecarwasparkedinthesecuredCaparraHeights  stationparkinglot. X  ` OnOctober10,1996,Morales'scontactatOSHAinformed <  himthattheagencyhadnoauthoritytoprotectpostalemployees   fromretaliation,andurgedtheplaintifftorequestUSPSto  \  conductaninternalinvestigation.WithoutseekingMorales's @  consent,OSHAforwardedhisfiletothePostalService,thereby   confirmingtoUSPSthatplaintiffwasinfactthewhistleblower. `  Fromthatpointon,theretaliationanddiscriminationdirectedat D  plaintiffworsenedconsiderably.MoralesallegedthatinDecember  1996hewasvictimizedbyepisodesofnamecallingandbullying, d andlaterthatmonthhewassuspendedoneweekforviolatinganew H uniformpolicyinstitutedbyLopez.InJanuary1997,apostal  employeepouredsugarintothegastankofplaintiff'scar,nearly h resultinginatrafficaccident.Onatleastthreeoccasionsin L February,plaintiff'ssupervisordismissedhimfromworkwithout   paybecause"therewasnoworkavailableforhim."Finally,on  l" February20,1997,plaintiffwastransferredfromtheCaparra P"$ HeightsstationtotheGeneralPostOfficeinSanJuan.Morales #& allegesthathewasremovedfromtheCaparraHeightsstation %p!( becausecoworkersaccusedhimofbeing"asafetyhazardanda T'#* homosexual." )$,  ` TheseeventspromptedMoralestofilefourEqual 8 EmploymentOpportunity(EEO)complaintswiththeUSPS.Z #  3      ׀Plaintiff  filedhisfirstprecomplaintonFebruary15,1996,intheaftermath X ofUSPS'sdecisiontoaltertheallotteddaysofffortheavailable <  distributionandwindowclerkposition.HissecondEEO   precomplaint,submittedApril25,1996,allegedthatanewcoffee  \  andlunchbreakpolicyinstitutedattheCaparraHeightsstation @  unfairlydiscriminatedagainstmalepostalemployees.Afterthe   USPSfailedtorespondtohisfirstprecomplaint,Moralesfileda `  formalEEOcomplaintonApril3,1996,allegingthatUSPS D  unlawfullyretaliatedagainsthimbypostingtheavailablewindow  clerkpositionwithThursday/Sundayrestdaysratherthan d Saturday/Sundayrestdays.Hesubsequentlyfiledasecondformal H EEOcomplaintonSeptember5,1996,citingthediscriminatorybreak  policyandanotherepisodeofretaliation.Plaintifffinallyleft h theemployoftheUSPSinearlySeptember1997,allegedlyasthe L resultofaconstructivedischarge.     l"  B.EventsunderlyingtheclaimsagainstAPWU  8  ` In1991,longbeforetheeventsatissuehere,Morales  hadbeenappointedshopstewardoftheCaparraHeightsstationby t defendantSoto'spredecessor,butwasremovedshortlythereafter X  forreasonsthatareunclear.Sixyearslater,theUnionelected   Sotoasitsnewpresident,andMoralespetitionedhimrepeatedly  x  forasecondtourasshopsteward.Sotocapitulated,appointing \$  MoralestothepositiononJanuary17,1997.However,plaintiff's   tenureendedabruptlythreeweekslaterafterSotoreceived |  complaintsthatMoraleswasactinginappropriatelytowardco `( workers,andabusinghisunionstatustoavengehimselfonUSPS   management.   ` Moralesallegesthathisdismissalasunionshopsteward d, wasmotivatedbyaconspiracybetweenUSPSandAPWUtoremovehim  fromhisjobattheCaparraHeightsstation,inviolationofthe  Union'sbylaws.PlaintiffalsoclaimsthattheUnionfailedto h0 processhisgrievancesarisingfromtwoFebruary1997dismissals   fromwork,ortakeanyactionwithrespecttohisconstructive  " discharge. l"4$ &     II.  $& 7 ` Moralesfiledanamendedcomplaintconsolidatinghis %!( ' $7numerousallegationsofwrongdoingintofourcounts.CountI, 'T#* entitled"RetaliationandDiscrimination,"allegesthatUSPS 8)%, unlawfullyretaliatedagainstplaintiffforfilingOSHAclaims,EEO *&. complaints,andunfairlaborpracticecharges.CountII,entitled ,X(0 "Conspiracy,"accusestheUSPSandAPWUof"conspir[ing]against 8 PlaintifftocausehisremovalasCaparraHeightsShopStewardand  lateronhisremovalfromCaparraHeightsStation."CountIII X alleges1)thatUSPSviolatedthecollectivebargainingagreement <  ("CBA"),and2)thatAPWUbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentation   "byarbitrarily,capriciously,inbadfaithand/orinvidiously  \  failingtoprocesstimelyPlaintiff'sgrievancesthrough[USPS's] @  grievanceprocedure."Finally,CountIVclaimsintentional   inflictionofemotionaldistressarisingfromthe"outrageousacts `  andomissions,retaliatoryconduct,anddiscrimination"perpetrated D  byUSPSandAPWU.   ` Asapreliminarymatter,plaintiff'sfailuretociteany d statutorybasisforreliefinhisamendedcomplaintcomplicatesour H reviewofhisclaims.However,undertheliberal"noticepleading"  requirementsofRule8oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure, h thisdeficiencyisnotfataltoplaintiff'scase: L 8 ` Acomplaintneednotpointtotheappropriate   statuteorlawinordertoraiseaclaimfor ! reliefunderRule8....[A]complaint  l" sufficientlyraisesaclaimevenifitpoints z!B# tonolegaltheoryorevenifitpointstothe P"$ wronglegaltheoryasabasisforthatclaim, &#% aslongasreliefispossibleunderanysetof #& factsthatcouldbeestablishedconsistent $ ' withtheallegations.%p!(` x` x >Tollev.CarrollTouch,Inc.,977F.2d1129,1134(7thCir.1992) T'#* (internalquotationmarksomitted);seeFitzgeraldv.CodexCorp., )$, 882F.2d586,589(1stCir.1989);seealsoSimontonv.Runyon,232 *t&. F.3d33,3637(2d.Cir.2000).Theseomissionsdo,however, X, (0 createanambiguityastowhetherMorales'sclaimsarisesolely 8 undertheantidiscriminationclauseoftheCBA,Y #  4      ׀orwhether  plaintiffalsointendedtopleadacauseofactionunderTitleVII X oftheCivilRightsActof1964. <   ` Thisqueryisnotacademicwhiletheprotectionsbuilt   intotheCBAparallelthoseofTitleVII,thetworemedialschemes  \  containdiscreteexhaustionrequirementsthatmaybartheir @  availabilitytoplaintiffassourcesofrelief.Appelleesurgeus   tofindthatMorales'samendedcomplaintreliedentirelyonthe `  CBA,andfailedtoallegeproperlyaTitleVIIclaim.That D  contentionignoresboththesubstanceandstructureofMorales's  amendedcomplaint.Notonlyisthecomplaintrepletewith d referencestoplaintiff'sEEOinitiatives,seeinfranote5,but H theretaliationanddiscriminationclaimsaresetforthina  separatecounttodistinguishthemfromMorales'sclaimsfor h violationsoftheCBA.Moreover,MoralescitedtoTitleVIIboth L inhisoppositiontosummaryjudgmentandinhisappellatebrief.   ]Oa  ]8 ]  Therefore,webelievethemoreprudentcourseistobroadly 8 construetheallegationsinplaintiff'samendedcomplaintas  allegingacauseofactionunderboththeCBAandTitleVII.See X Fed.R.Civ.P.8(f)("Allpleadingsshallbesoconstruedastodo <  substantialjustice.");FosterMed.Corp.Employees'PensionPlan   v.Healthco,Inc.,753F.2d194,197(1stCir.1985).h #  5      ׀Withthis  \  approachinmind,weturntothecountsoftheamendedcomplaint. @  &  @( III.     A.BreachofCollectiveBargainingAgreement  |   ` Inacceptingtherecommendationsofthemagistratejudge, |D  '#KthedistrictcourtproperlycharacterizedCountIIIofMorales's ( amendedcomplaintasadvancinga"hybridbreachofcontractand 8 fairrepresentationclaim."TheSupremeCourthasobservedthat   8 ` [s]uchasuit,asaformalmatter,comprises X twocausesofaction.Thesuitagainstthe f. employerrestson301[oftheLabor <  ManagementRelationsAct],sincetheemployee   isallegingabreachofthecollective   bargainingagreement.Thesuitagainstthe    unionisoneforbreachoftheunion'sdutyof  \  fairrepresentation,whichisimpliedunder j 2  theschemeoftheNationalLaborRelations @  Act.Yetthetwoclaimsareinextricably   interdependent.Toprevailagainsteitherthe   companyortheUnion,employeeplaintiffsmust   notonlyshowthattheirdischargewas `  contrarytothecontractbutmustalsocarry n6 theburdenofdemonstratingabreachofduty D  bytheUnion.M` x` x DelCostellov.Int'lBroth.ofTeamsters,462U.S.151,16465  (1983)(internalcitationsandquotationmarksomitted)(emphasis r: added);seealsoLocalNo.391v.Terry,494U.S.558,56364  (1990);Fantv.NewEng.PowerServ.Co.,239F.3d8,14(1stCir.  2001).Thedualrequirementsforalleginga"hybridclaim"are v> predicatedonthetheorythatanemployeeworkingunderaCBAis " ordinarilyrequiredtoexhaustthegrievanceproceduresprovidedin ! thatagreementbeforebringingsuit.DelCostello,426U.S.at163. z!B# Arigidexhaustionrequirement,however,worksaninjusticetothe &#% employee"whentheunionrepresentingtheemployeeinthe $ ' grievance/arbitrationprocedureactsinsuchadiscriminatory, ~&F") dishonest,arbitraryorperfunctoryfashionastobreachitsduty *(#+ offairrepresentation."Id.at164.Underthesecircumstances, )%- anemployeewhohasnotexhaustedthegrievanceproceduresoutlined +J'/ intheCBAmaynonethelessfilesuitagainsttheemployerifhecan 8 demonstratethattheunionbreacheditsdutyoffair  representation,suchthatthegrievanceproceduresmandatedbythe X CBAprovidednomeaningfulrecourse.Id. <   ` Courtsconductatripartiteinquirytodeterminewhether   aunionbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentationsomateriallyas  \  torendertheCBA'sgrievanceproceduresinadequate."Thethree @  separatelevelsofinquiry...areasfollows:(1)didtheunion   actarbitrarily;(2)didtheunionactdiscriminatorily;or(3)did `  theunionactinbadfaith."Ooleyv.SchwitzerDiv.,Household D  Mfg.Inc.,961F.2d1293,1302(7thCir.1992)(citingAirLine  PilotsAss'n,Int'lv.O'Neill,499U.S.65,7176(1991))."In d ordertosuccessfullydefendagainstamotionforsummaryjudgment H onadutyoffairrepresentationclaim,theplaintiffmustpoint  thecourttorecordevidencesupportinganyoneorallofthese h elements."Griffinv.AirLinePilotsAss'n,Int'l,32F.3d1079, L 1083(7thCir.1994).TheSupremeCourthasstressedthatour   evaluationofanysuchevidencemustbe"highlydeferential"tothe  l" union.O'Neill,499U.S.at78(quotingFordMotorCo.v.Huffman, P"$ 345U.S.330,338(1953)). #&  ` Thedeferenceaccordedunionsdefendinghybridclaims %p!( imposesaheavyburdenonemployeeslikeMoralesallegingabreach T'#* ofthedutyoffairrepresentation.Againstthisbackdrop,the )$, districtcourtdidnoterrinitsdeterminationthatMorales's *t&. submissionsfailedtoprovidetherequisiterecordevidenceof X, (0 "irrational"unionactivityfalling"outsideawiderangeof 8 reasonableness."Id.Plaintiff'samendedcomplaintandopposition  tosummaryjudgmentinsteadraisebareallegationsthatAPWU1) X violateditsbylawsbyperfunctorilydismissinghimfromhis <  positionasshopsteward,and2)undulydelayedorfailedto   process"severalofplaintiff'sgrievances."Inresponse,APWU's  \  motionforsummaryjudgmentreferencesspecificprovisionsinthe @  Union'sbylawsauthorizingtheUnionpresidenttodismissashop   stewardwithoutprovidinganypriorprocess.e #  6      ׀Theexhibits `  appendedtoAPWU'ssummaryjudgmentmotionalsoincludelettersto D  Moralesmeticulouslydocumentingtheprogressionofhisvarious  grievancesagainstUSPS,andreflectthatAPWUhadpreviously d soughtandobtainedtimeextensionsfromUSPStoensurethatany H grievancesthatweredelayedwerenotdefaulted.   ` Inshort,afterreviewingthesummaryjudgmentrecord,we h concludethatMoralesfailedtoproffersufficientevidencethat L theUnionbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentationbyacting   arbitrarily,discriminatorily,orinbadfaith.O'Neill,499U.S.  l" at7677.Consequently,plaintifffailstosatisfythefirstof P"$  thedualhybridclaimrequirements,seeDelCostello,426U.S.at #& 163,andweneednotseparatelyassessMorales'sallegationsthat 8 USPSviolatedtheCBA.   B.RetaliationandDiscriminationunderTitleVII  X  ` Adoptingtherecommendationofthemagistratejudge,the X  districtcourtconcludedthatMorales'sretaliationand   discriminationclaimswereonlyactionableunderthecollective  x  bargainingagreement.However,itiswellsettledthatTitleVII \$  oftheCivilRightsActof1964providesreliefindependentofthe   remedialschemeoutlinedintheCBA.InAlexanderv.Gardner |  DenverCo.,415U.S.36(1974),theSupremeCourtconcludedthat `( 8 ` thelegislativehistoryofTitleVIImanifests   acongressionalintenttoallowanindividual  topursueindependentlyhisrightsunderboth  TitleVIIandotherapplicablestateand V federalstatutes.Theclearinferenceisthat d, TitleVIIwasdesignedtosupplementrather : thansupplant,existinglawsandinstitutions  relatingtoemploymentdiscrimination.'i` x` x Id.at4849.TheAlexanderCourtaccordinglyruledthat Z plaintiffswhoinvokethegrievanceproceduresofthecollective > bargainingagreementdonottherebyforfeittheirprivaterightof ! actionunderTitleVII.Id.at49.Hence,Alexanderandits !^# progeny,seeWrightv.UniversalMar.Serv.Corp.,525U.S.70,78 B# % 79(1998),supportthepropositionthatthepresenceofananti $ ' discriminationprovisioninacollectivebargainingagreementdoes &b") notforecloseapostalemployee'sprivaterightofactionunder F($+  TitleVII. )%-  ` TheSeventhCircuit'sdecisioninRomanv.U.S.Postal 8  Service,821F.2d382(7thCir.1987),relieduponbythedistrict  court,isnottothecontrary.InRoman,thePostmasterofthe X postofficewhereRomanworkedaccusedhimoffalsifyinghis <  employmentapplicationform,andallegedlypromisedhimaposition   atanotherpostalfacilityifhechosetoresignfromhiscurrent  \  jobratherthanbefired.AfterthePostmasterfailedtodeliver @  onthispromise,Romanfiledsuitinfederaldistrictcourt   allegingthatUSPSviolatedhisproceduraldueprocessrightsby `  "fraudulentlyinducinghimtoresignfromhisemployment."Id.at D  384.TheSeventhCircuitrejectedtheplaintiff'sargumentthat  theConstitutionitselffurnishedarightofactionforhis d proceduraldueprocessclaim,observingthat"Congresshas H expresslyauthorizedtheadoptionoffinalandbindinggrievance  proceduresinthePostalServicecollectivebargainingagreements." h Id.at386(quotingEllisv.U.S.PostalService,784F.2d835, L 83940(7thCir.1980)).Accordingly,Roman'srecoursewaslimited   totheproceduralrightsenshrinedinthatagreement:  l" 8 ` Roman'sallegationthatthePostalService P"$ violatedhisdueprocessrightsinthreatening &#% himandforcinghimtoresigndoesnotprovide #& jurisdiction.WhereCongresshascreatedan $ ' elaborate,remedialschemewhichadequately %p!( andcomprehensivelyaddressestheprotection ~&F") ofconstitutionalrightsintheemployment T'#* context,anemployeewhoserightsare *(#+ protectedthroughthatschemecannotbringa )$, new,nonstatutoryaction.)%-` x` x tId.at38586(emphasisadded). +J'/  ` However,justasCongressmaylimitanemployee'savenues 8 ofredressforcertainconstitutionalclaimsbyestablishing"an  elaborateremedialscheme"thatadequatelyaddressessuchclaims, X italsohasthepowertocreatemultiplerightsofactionto <  redressothertypesofemploymentinjuries.Thus,astheSupreme   CourtruledinAlexander,thelegislativehistoryofTitleVII  \  reflectsCongress'sintenttoprovideemployeesvictimizedby @  retaliationordiscriminationwithanadditionalstatutoryrightof   actionwhollyindependentoftheCBA.Alexander,415U.S.at48 `  49.Thedistrictcourtthereforeerredinconcludingthatthe D  collectivebargainingagreementbetweenUSPSandAPWUfurnished  Morales'ssoleavenueofrecourseforhisretaliationand d discriminationclaims. H  ` JudicialrecourseunderTitleVII,however,isnota  remedyoffirstresort.SeeJensenv.Frank,912F.2d517,520 h (1stCir.1990)("TitleVIIrequiresexhaustionofadministrative L remediesasaconditionprecedenttosuitinfederaldistrict   court.").USPS'sEEOGuidelines,promulgatedpursuantto42U.S.C.  l" 2000e5,prescribealengthyadministrativeprocessthat P"$ plaintiffsmustexhaustpriortofilingaTitleVIIactionin #& districtcourt.Here,MoralesarguesthatUSPSfailedtoprovide %p!( anyformaldispositionofhistwoformalEEOcomplaintswithinthe T'#* established180daywindow,see29C.F.R.1614.107(c),thereby )$, entitlinghimtopursuehisclaimsindistrictcourt.Plaintiff *t&. buttresseshisassertionswithtwolettersfromUSPSformally X, (0 dismissinghisEEOcomplaints.EachletterinformedMoralesthat 8 "[i]fyouaredissatisfiedwiththePostalService'sfinaldecision  inthiscase,youmayfileacivilactioninanappropriateU.S. X DistrictCourt..." <   ` USPSarguesonappealthatevenifplaintiffmay   theoreticallylookoutsidethecollectivebargainingagreementto  \  analternativesourceofreliefunderTitleVII,heforfeitedhis @  rightofactionbyneglectingtofileanyEEOcomplaintsaddressing   thevastmajorityofthediscriminatoryandretaliatoryincidents `  describedintheamendedcomplaint. D   ` WeagreewithUSPSthatMorales'sTitleVIIcauseof  actionislimitedtothosediscriminationandretaliation d allegationsinhisamendedcomplaintthatwerepreviouslythe H subjectofaformalEEOcomplaint. AswereadtheEEOdismissal  letters,thisuniverseislimitedtothefollowingthree h allegations: L  _(83a"c3"   ` c32(  1  )3  0   Morales'sallegationthatJobBid#2541417was   postedwithThursday/Sundayrestdaysratherthan ! Saturday/Sundayrestdaysinretaliationfor  l" plaintiff'sOSHAcomplaintsc3R݌z!B# (# (# Ќ   ` 4"c3"   ` c32(  2  )3  0   Morales'sallegationofsexualdiscriminationand &#% retaliationarisingfromanApril9,1996 #& incidentinwhichplaintiff'sdutiesand $ ' responsibilitieswereawardedtoafemale %p!( employeeandhewasgivenwindowclerkdutiesto ~&F") perform$ X c3B݌T'#* (# (# Ќ  "c3"   ` c3M2(  3  )3  0   Morales'sallegationthatthe"coffeeandlunch )$, breaks"policywasnotappliedinanequaland )%-  nondiscriminatorymatterzc3M݌*t&. (# (# Ќ   ` WerejectUSPS'sinsinuationonappealthatsummary 8  dispositionofthesesurvivingclaimsisappropriateatthistime.  Whileitiswithinourdiscretiontoaffirmthedistrictcourt's X entryofsummaryjudgmentonanygroundrevealedbytherecord, <  HoultonCitizens'Coalitionv.TownofHoulton,175F.3d178,184   (1stCir.1999),anydeterminationofwhetherMorales'sTitleVII  \  claimscansurvivesummaryjudgmentispremature.Asaconsequence @  ofthedistrictcourt'serroneouspresumptionthatMorales'sclaims   weresolelyactionableundertheCBA,nocourthasanalyzedthe `  recordtodeterminewhetherMoraleshasraisedamaterialdispute D  offactthatcompelsatrialonhissurvivingTitleVIIclaims.  Underthesecircumstances,webelievethepreferablepracticeisto d remandtothedistrictcourt.SeeUnitedStatesv.GellIren,146 H F.3d827,831(10thCir.199)("Afactualrecordmustbedeveloped  inandaddressedbythedistrictcourtinthefirstinstancefor h effectivereview.").However,Moralesisprecludedonremandfrom L seekingreliefforaplethoraofotheractsofdiscriminationand   retaliationallegedinhisamendedcomplaint,includingthe  l" discreteactsofbullying,intimidation,andvandalismbyhisco P"$ workers,hissevendaysuspensionforviolatingtheUSPSuniform #& policy,histransferfromtheCaparraHeightsstation,hisdaylong %p!( "expulsions"fromworkinFebruary1997,hisconstructive T'#* discharge,andhisinternalgrievancesagainstAPWU.i #  7      ׀ )$,  C.ResidualClaims  8  ` OurresolutionofMorales'sCBAandTitleVIIclaims  disposesofhisconspiracyclaim."Acivilconspiracyisa t combinationoftwoormorepersonstodoanunlawfulorcriminal X  actortodoalawfulactbyunlawfulmeansforanunlawful   purpose."Ammlungv.CityofChester,494F.2d811,814(3dCir.  x  1974);seealsoMarylandCasualtyCo.v.Hosmer,93F.2d365,366 \$  (1stCir.1937).Theonlypredicateactscitedintheamended   complaintthatpossiblyestablishabasisforconspiracyliability 8 are1)APWU'sremovalofplaintiffasshopsteward,2)USPS's  decisiontotransferplaintiffoutoftheCaparraHeightsstation, X and3)plaintiff'sallegedconstructivedischarge.Wehave <  concluded,however,thatMoralesfailedtopreservearightof   actionforanyofthesethreeallegedoffenses.Morales's  \  survivingTitleVIIclaims,seesupra,implicateonlyunilateral @  decisionsorpoliciesofUSPSthatcannotformthegravamenofa   civilconspiracyclaim.SeeAmmlung,494F.2dat814. `   ` WithregardtoMorales'semotionaldistressclaim,even D  assumingthetruthofthesurvivingTitleVIIallegations,USPS's  conductdoesnotrisetothelevelof"extremeandoutrageous," d "beyondallpossibleboundsofdecency,"or"utterlyintolerablein H acivilizedcommunity."SantiagoRamirezv.Sec'yofDept.of  Defense,62F.3d445,448(1stCir.1995).Consequently, h plaintiff'sintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressclaim L failsasamatteroflaw.     IV.   l" 9 ` Weaffirmthejudgmententeredfordefendantsoncounts l"4$ II,III,andIVofMorales'samendedcomplaint. Wevacatethe $& judgmententeredoncountIandremand forproceedingsnot %!( inconsistentwiththisdecision.Allpartiesshallbeartheirown 'T#* costs. 8)%,  ` Soordered. F  F  F