of the duty of fair representation, Plaintiffs have lost substantial income, fringe benefits, seniority and other valuable job rights and will continue to suffer such losses.”)). Whether Plaintiffs would not have been promoted even if Williams and Freeman had not been incorrectly certified as B Operators (the “but-for” world) is an issue of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Leamer, 288 F.3d at 535. Lastly, Plaintiffs Montoya and Figueroa did allege injury in that they should be ahead of Freeman and Williams on the seniority list. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 46). Deprivation of seniority rights by a Union’s failure to file a grievance is sufficient injury to sustain a section 301 suit. See Ramirez-Lebron v. International Shipping Agency, Inc., 593 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). e. Punitive Damages Are Unavailable Under
holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea holding that both plaintiffs discrimination and retaliation claims were beyond the preemptive scope of section 301 because they involved purely factual questions and asserted rights independent of the cba holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301 holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by section 301 because employers duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the cba holding that plaintiffs had standing to bring section 301 lawsuit to enforce seniority rights under cba