The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by former United Airlines employee Sheila Foster against her union and its representatives for allegedly failing to prosecute her workplace grievances.
In a per curiam opinion filed Jan. 13, 2026, the three-judge panel unanimously upheld the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas's decision to dismiss Foster's claims with prejudice for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
The case, *Foster v. IAMAW District Lodge 141* (5th Cir. 2026), arose from Foster's employment disputes with United Airlines, where she worked under representation by IAMAW District Lodge 141 as outlined in the Passenger Service Agreement, the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the airline.
According to court documents, Foster injured her knee while working and subsequently requested multiple workplace accommodations and transfers from United Airlines. When the airline denied her requests and ultimately terminated her employment, Foster filed a formal complaint with her union representative, Robert Jesel.
Foster sought to have Jesel pursue her complaint against United under the terms of the Passenger Service Agreement. However, on Sept. 2, 2022, Jesel informed Foster that he had closed her file and that the union would not be pursuing her case further.
Foster then filed suit against the union, its president Mike Klemm, and representative Jesel, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation in connection with their handling of her workplace grievances. She claimed the defendants failed to adequately represent her interests in pursuing her complaints against United Airlines.
The district court dismissed Foster's lawsuit with prejudice, finding that she had failed to file her claims within the applicable statute of limitations period. Foster appealed the dismissal to the Fifth Circuit.
The appellate panel, consisting of Chief Judge Leslie Southwick Elrod and Circuit Judges Duncan Smith and Don Willett, reviewed the district court's decision and found no error in the lower court's analysis.
In their brief per curiam opinion, the judges determined that Foster's breach of contract and misrepresentation claims were indeed time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations. The court did not elaborate on the specific limitations period that applied or provide detailed reasoning for its conclusion, instead affirming the district court's dismissal in a summary fashion.
The case highlights the importance of timing in employment-related litigation, particularly when union members seek to challenge their representatives' handling of workplace disputes. Union members who believe their representatives have failed to adequately pursue grievances must be mindful of applicable deadlines for filing legal challenges.
Under federal labor law, unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, which requires them to represent members honestly, in good faith, and without arbitrary discrimination. However, this duty does not guarantee that unions will pursue every grievance or that they must achieve favorable outcomes for members.
Foster's case also illustrates the procedural hurdles that can prevent employment disputes from reaching the merits. Even when employees believe they have legitimate claims against their unions for inadequate representation, strict adherence to filing deadlines is essential to preserve their right to seek judicial relief.
The Fifth Circuit's affirmance means that Foster's claims will not proceed to trial, and she will not have the opportunity to present evidence supporting her allegations that the union and its representatives breached their contractual obligations or engaged in misrepresentation.
For IAMAW District Lodge 141 and the individual defendants, the ruling provides closure on the litigation and validates their procedural defense based on the statute of limitations. The union maintained that Foster's claims were untimely filed, and the courts ultimately agreed with this position.
The case serves as a reminder to union members that they must act promptly if they believe their representatives have failed to adequately pursue their workplace grievances. Waiting too long to file legal challenges can result in the complete dismissal of otherwise potentially valid claims.
Looking forward, the ruling may encourage unions and their representatives to be more diligent in communicating deadlines and procedural requirements to members who are considering legal action. It also underscores the importance of legal counsel for workers navigating complex employment and labor law issues.
The Fifth Circuit's decision is final unless Foster seeks further review by the Supreme Court, though the court rarely accepts such cases involving procedural dismissals. The case number is 25-20122, and the opinion was filed with Clerk Lyle W. Cayce.